copyright Archives - SmartFrame

Copyright and AI images: What does the law say?

SmartFrame — Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:26:41 +0000

We are used to thinking that copyright only applies to creations of the human mind. But images created with the use of AI aren’t wholly exempt from its protection. So what exactly does the law say?

Art created by artificial intelligence (AI) has exploded into the mainstream, thanks to a range of different platforms and apps such as OpenAI’s DALL·E 2, Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion, and Prisma’s Lensa AI.

Through a combination of machine learning, written prompts, and user-uploaded images, anyone can now quickly generate countless pictures and imitate particular artistic styles, from photorealism to illustrations and cartoons.

The question of how this flurry of AI-enabled digital art impacts image owners has not gone unanswered, with both individual creators and companies taking the matter to the courts.

One group of artists and illustrators has already filed a class-action complaint against Midjourney, Deviantart, and Stability AI. Media giant Getty Images, meanwhile, has sued the latter for copyright violations and unfair competition.

How does artificial intelligence generate artwork?

Most generative AI art models scrape existing images and text-to-image pairs off the internet, using machine learning to build associations between its data and the prompt to create new content.

For example, OpenAI’s DALL·E 2 was trained on “hundreds of millions of captioned images from the internet” while Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion was trained on 2.3 billion images.

But the technology has accelerated faster than the protections for the art they require to function, causing a copyright frenzy.

Some datasets, for example, have been found to include copyrighted images. And while the exact mechanisms behind how individual images are processed and weighted are unclear to most, research has revealed that image-generating models have been shown to copy the data on which it was trained.

Although OpenAI has sought to mitigate against what it calls image regurgitation by removing large quantities of visually similar images, this does not protect copyrighted images.

Moreover, this does not stop users from reproducing a certain style – as artists such as Hollie Mengert found out – ultimately putting creators at risk of devaluation of work or potentially a loss in commissions.

Copyright implications of AI-generated artwork: What you need to know

Each country will establish its own viewpoint as time goes on. But, at present, the UK is one of a handful of countries that protects computer-generated and AI-assisted works.

The law states that every work that expresses “original human creativity” benefits from copyright protection if it requires a relative amount of skill, labor, and creative judgment to create.

When considering AI-assisted work, these parameters could apply to AI-based options found inside a camera. Provided the photographer’s creativity is still evident, the photo will still be protected as an artistic work.

Similarly, the US protects the fruits of intellectual labor as long as they are both original and fixed in tangible form; ideas cannot be copyrighted until they have taken some kind of shape or form.

However, recent legal cases demonstrate the US Copyright Office only deems works of human authorship worthy of protection – although what constitutes “human authorship” is not always clear cut.

For example, computer scientist Stephen Thaler made multiple requests for AI-generated artworks and patents to receive copyright protection, and all were unsuccessful.

On the other hand, the copyright request for Kristina Kashtanova’s comic book Zarya of The Dawn, which featured artwork generated through Midjourney, was initially granted, before being rescinded and then reissued for the storyline and characters – but not for the images.

In Kashtanova’s case, the contention lay in defining what counts as “substantial human involvement.” Although the case has been brought to a close, the blurry line between human creation and authorship remains a site of conflict.

What constitutes fair use for AI-generated art?

Copyright exceptions are permitted in both the US and the UK. In many cases, a person or party is allowed to use a copyrighted work without the owner’s permission, as long as this use is limited to specific purposes such as news reporting, comment, criticism, research, scholarship, or teaching.

Still, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to fair use, with situations usually considered on a case-by-case basis.

This depends on the nature of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, how much of the copyrighted work is used, and the effect on the market or value of the original work.

The UK government held a public consultation on copyright related to text and data mining (TDM) for AI between October 2021 and January 2022. It concluded that TDM constitutes a copyright infringement unless a legal copyright exception or permission is granted for its use. This exception already exists: TDM is permitted if it is limited to use for non-commercial research or educational purposes.

However, the UK government has indicated it might extend this exception to include TDM for any purpose, including for commercial use. In this event, rights holders’ content would still be protected by measures such as requirements for lawful access, which means they will be able to choose the platform on which their works are available and will be able to charge for access.

The US Copyright Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office also hosted a consultation on copyright law and machine learning in the age of AI in October 2021.

At present, human authorship is currently an essential requirement for copyright protection, but Director Shira Perlmutter sees cases becoming more complex as time goes on. The US Copyright Office recently announced addressing these legal gray areas would be a priority going into 2023.

Cases arguing the extent of “transformative” use are not new. In the case of Graham vs. Prince, where photographer Donald Graham sued artists Richard Prince for using an Instagram screenshot of one of his photos, Prince’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied as the reproduced art did not fundamentally change the underlying “composition, presentation, scale, color palette, and media” of the photo.

With this new unprecedented scale of current technological abilities, data scraping, and the opacity of AI algorithms, such disputes are likely only to become more common.

Ethical considerations when AI tools meet the world of art

As with any new technology that has the potential to become embedded in our daily lives, there are ethical points to consider. Within the art world, these considerations range from the previously mentioned issues of authorship and ownership to questions of bias and discrimination.

According to an independent analysis of 12 million images from Stable Diffusion’s dataset (LAION-5B), 47% were sourced from only 100 domains, with the largest number of these taken from Pinterest.

While the sample analyzed only accounts for 0.5% of the 2.3 billion images that the model was first trained on, and 2% of the 600 million images used to train the most recent three checkpoints, the analysis revealed a handful of interesting things.

In general, user-generated content platforms, such as WordPress-hosted blogs, Smugmug, Blogspot, and Flickr, made up a huge proportion of the image data, as did shopping sites and stock image sites.

Many artists use online platforms like these to promote their work and connect with others. Visibility is a fundamental part of exposure, business, and sales, so artists hoping to protect their intellectual property by keeping their work off social media or behind a paywall may limit reach and networking opportunities.

The study also revealed that some of the images used are copyright protected – and it’s for this reason Getty Images is suing Stability AI. (Incidentally, the stock image company had previously banned the use of AI-generated images from its platform due to copyright concerns.)

On top of that, Sydney-based artist Kim Leutwyler said she saw “almost every portrait” she had ever shared on the internet used to train popular AI models through the search engine Have I Been Trained, which allows people to discover whether their work has been used in datasets.

Another artist used the site to discover their private medical records in LAION-5B, begging the question of how much other personal data might have been included in these large-scale datasets.

Exploring the intersection of copyright and AI-generated art

The absence of a clearly defined legal framework, coupled with opaque data collection and processing methods, leaves many questions open to ethical interpretation.

An artistic style cannot be granted copyright protection. But style sets individual creators apart – especially considering that it takes years to develop a craft and hone a skill.

It’s easy for everyday users to experiment with digital images due to the open-source nature and affordability of different models, which complicates things further.

When a specific style is used as a prompt, it can easily cause financial, professional, and reputational damage. Search results might be distorted by AI illustrations, images that may go against that artist’s brand or values. Such automated generation also invalidates the practice, passion, and purpose of artists who have cultivated their abilities for years.

There is a level of creativity and originality in the selection of images, the formulation of textual prompts, post-production, and editing, that lead to the generation of an AI image. Certainly, the creation of new art depends on existing art; as creators develop, they draw on inspiration, reformulating and transforming it into something new.

However, feeding images into an AI model blurs the line between inspiration and appropriation. The same process might be happening in principle, but without the time, learned skill, and unique voice of the artist.

In the future, cases may be decided on the level of contribution of each individual component (original art, user, training data, AI) but it’s easy to see how scraping someone else’s work to generate something “new” before claiming authorship (and copyright) over it can constitute an ethical violation.

Pros and cons: Do the benefits of AI-generated art outweigh the pitfalls?

Andrey Usoltsev, founder of Prisma Labs, the company behind Lensa AI, believes this “democratization of access” is a breakthrough, promising the company would focus on steering “the use of such technology in a safe and ethical way.”

While it’s true that the tool may be helpful for visualizing screenplay or novel scenes, or for generating reference images, the lack of privacy or compensation inherent to such models must be considered.

As we have seen, the safety and ethics of these tools are already contested. There is also the privacy angle to consider; where activists have long argued against the non-consensual use of personal data by large social tech platforms, people are currently training AI models for free, using both their own and other people’s data.

Artists and users currently have little legal recourse or the means to enforce data restriction measures on the images and information used for AI models. The outcome of a number of ongoing lawsuits, however, may provide more insight into how these cases will proceed.

Where exactly this all goes from here is unclear. But one thing is certain: as technology, AI, intellectual property, and copyright laws continue to intersect in increasingly complex ways, individuals, tech companies, and publishers alike will have to pay closer attention to the data and images they use.

The post Copyright and AI images: What does the law say? 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.

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.

What has #FreeHawaiiPhoto taught us about making money from photography?

Peter Townshend — Fri, 05 Nov 2021 12:19:11 +0000

With high-quality cameras more accessible than ever, it’s harder than ever to make money out of photography. So how can photographers, image libraries, and content owners prosper in such tough times?

There’s a dilemma that’s all too common in photography and throughout the creative industries: To make money, your work needs to be popular and to be popular, it needs to be out there. But it can’t be out there if it’s not yet popular because many are not willing to pay for it.
So what’s the answer? How do you make money out of your images online?

Distribute them for free.

Sounds crazy, right? But bear with us

The case of #FreeHawaiiPhoto

Canadian-born photographer Cath Simard took the below photo of a Hawaiian road in 2017, which subsequently went viral across social media and the wider web. The image was shared countless times around the world, largely without permission or attribution.

Simard spent a great deal of time and effort trying to track down every illegal usage of the image and retrospectively gain fair compensation. But with no way of knowing just how many copies of the file were out there, it was impossible for her to keep up.
Exasperated at how the current method of online image display creates an ecosystem that does little to protect the intellectual property of creators, she decided to take a different approach. She began the #FreeHawaiiPhoto campaign. Simard sold the image as a non-fungible token (NFT) and then immediately released it for commercial and non-commercial use, with no fee attached.

The theory was that by encouraging usage of the image, the resulting fame would add value to an authenticated original. You could think of it like a record sleeve that has been signed by the band that recorded it, a football shirt signed by the player who wore it, or indeed, a printed image signed by the photographer who took it.
And it worked; the NFT, released as a 1/1 edition, ended up being sold to a collector for the equivalent of $303,481.

How it challenges the current image-monetization model

While this case is very specific and completely unique in many ways, it raises broader questions about the way in which we have historically made money out of digital images.

With the democratization of photography and mainstream access to high-quality scanning hardware, countless images are either freely available online (both legally and illegally) or relatively easy to create with the average smartphone camera.

With photography facing such devaluation, and the prospect of tracking down and being paid for every online use extremely difficult, it begs the question: is the traditional restrictive image-licensing model obsolete? We believe it is. It’s time to be free from the threat of image theft and give your images the exposure they deserve.

This isn’t to say that you should send a high-resolution JPEG of your image to everyone on the internet and hope it gets popular.

Rather, by using image-streaming technology to distribute it freely but securely, you can provide widespread access at maximum quality, while retaining complete control over where it appears.

This means that, as with the #FreeHawaiiPhoto case, the more your image is shared and the more times it is viewed, the more value could be added through its subsequent fame.

However, the difference with image streaming is that shares do not mean duplications; all views are securely streamed from just one original online copy.

The money, of course, still has to come from somewhere – and that’s where in-image advertising comes into play.

The new image-monetization model

Image streaming works for images much like YouTube works for videos. As an image owner, you store all your high-resolution original files on one secure server and each of those images can then be published across the web using embed codes.

Once displayed, they are protected from theft through right-clicks and screenshots and they can appear with uneditable captions and dynamic watermarks. Users can also zoom in to view all the finest details without affecting page loading times, and it’s even possible to include call-to-action buttons that direct a viewer to your online shop.

This highly engaging user experience is perfectly complemented by in-image advertising, whereby contextually targeted ads are served within the image frames as they are streamed.

Using artificial intelligence (AI), the content of the image and the page on which it appears can be evaluated, and this can then be combined with the geolocation of the user. Using this data, ads that are completely relevant to the content a user is viewing can be served within the frames of these images. This avoids wasted impressions through poor ad placement and flawed retargeting.

Read more: The fascinating ways in which the biggest brands are using AI today
Revenue from advertising is, of course, paid to the content owner, but a proportion is also paid to the publisher. This means that publishers not only get to use an image for free, but they also get paid every time it is viewed, providing an incentive for them to share it as widely as possible.

The result is the best of all worlds: Maximum exposure with no loss of revenue, while maintaining complete control.

Image streaming is the future of digital publishing

This article began with a moneymaking dilemma and has ended with what we believe is the ideal monetization model for creators, owners, and publishers of digital images.

With 1bn hours of YouTube content being watched every day, it’s clear that streaming works – and with YouTube’s 2020 ad revenue totaling $19.77bn, the potential earnings are undeniable.

The idea of speculating to accumulate can be a hard one to justify for photographers, image libraries and other content owners in the current landscape.

However, by using image streaming and in-image advertising, it’s possible to offer the incentive of payment for the publication of your images, without putting your hand in your pocket – and crucially, without making a single copy of the original image file.

Image streaming and in-image advertising make it possible to incentivize viral popularity with minimal security risks, while all the time getting paid. What’s not to like about that?

The post What has #FreeHawaiiPhoto taught us about making money from photography? appeared first on SmartFrame.

C2PA: Everything you need to know about the C2PA project

Peter Townshend — Wed, 13 Oct 2021 14:57:45 +0000

The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) aims to implement a new standard for online content. But what exactly is it and how does it differ from existing initiatives?

From the safety of vaccines through to the reputation of political figures and everything in between, most people will be familiar with the idea of online audiences being intentionally misled by what they see on social media and forums. But few will be familiar with the various tools and initiatives that are currently being developed to help people understand the trustworthiness of what they see online. In this article, we examine one of the latest of these, the C2PA.

What is the C2PA?

The C2PA is a coming together of some of the biggest players in the tech, creative, publishing and broadcasting industries to create an open standard for content provenance and authenticity.

Leonard Rosenthal, Chair of the C2PA Technical Working Group and Adobe’s CAI Architect, described its goal as bringing “an open standard that can be adopted anywhere in the world, in individual organizations, in individual businesses, in industry segments. We want something that is usable anywhere and everywhere. And that’s whether we’re thinking about images, videos, audio, or documents.

“All we’re really saying here is we’re using some well-established mathematics and technology in the area of cryptography to be able to ensure that we can detect – or more specifically, you, as a consumer, can detect – when assets have been modified.”

Who are members of the C2PA?

The C2PA has over 30 members among its active contributors, including many extremely influential names, such as Adobe, Arm, BBC, Intel, Microsoft, Truepic and Twitter.

Why was the C2PA formed?

The aim of the C2PA is to combine the efforts of two existing initiatives designed to vouch for the integrity of digital media: The Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) and Project Origin.

What is the C2PA’s mission?

Laura Ellis, Head of Technology Forecasting at the BBC – one of the leading forces behind Project Origin – gave a good description of what the C2PA aims to achieve: “Given the disinformation that we’re encountering right across the media landscape, we just feel that now’s the time to be thinking about, in the long term, starting to embed these signals or align these signals to our content.

“If you can’t trust what you see, and you can’t trust that what you see is coming from the bona fide media organization that you believe it is, then that undermines trust right across the board for us.

“It’s something that we felt we needed to invest a lot of time and thought in, and we were more than delighted to find that there were like-minded people in the CAI at the time.”

How is the C2PA making a difference?

Release of the C2PA technical specification

On January 26, 2022, the C2PA released version 1.0 of its technical specification, forming the basis of the world’s first industry standard for content provenance.This open-source specification is designed for easy implementation with any hardware, software, or online platform – from the smallest outfits right up to the biggest tech. Such accessibility paves the way for the widespread adoption of a global standard for digital provenance.

At a recent online launch event, Adobe’s Executive Vice President Dana Rao celebrated the release of the C2PA open standard as an important milestone in the journey towards restoring trust in online content, saying: “Today’s release means that everybody – software companies, social media platforms – can start building trust into their tools right now. And this is critical, because we all as a society need to be able to trust what we see, what we hear, and what we read.

“Being able to leverage our joint technical expertise has allowed us to create something that’s really going to work in our products and our tools and that’s the benefit of a standard that is created by and for the industry. We know what the problems are, we know how to solve them.”

The specification provides a comprehensive overview of the standard, covering the most technical details, while also offering a jargon-free explainer that’s designed to be accessible to all.

It also outlines the potential threats C2PA faces, provides detailed harms modelling, and offers information on user experience, including how C2PA information will be presented.

The Deepfake Taskforce Act
The release of version 1.0 of the C2PA technical specification comes shortly after the United States Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed the Deepfake Task Force Act, which will create a task force at the Department of Homeland Security to tackle the ongoing threat posed by deepfake technology.

The act was introduced by Ohio Senator Rob Portman and Michigan Senator Gary Peters, both of whom appeared via video at the C2PA specification launch event.

“I’m pleased to help lead this good fight against deepfakes and to promote the authenticity of online content,” said Senator Portman.

“I’ve been honored to work closely with Dana Rao and teams at Adobe, Truepic, and other C2PA members to introduce new legislation to help develop standards for digital content provenance.”

Senator Peters continued: “This important bill will give the Department of Homeland Security additional tools to address the threats posed by deepfakes. It creates a taskforce made up of experts from government, academia, civil society, and industry, who will be charged with creating a coordinated plan to explore how the creation of a digital content provenance standard could help prevent the spread of deepfakes and disinformation.”

Such powerful support for the C2PA open standard is testament not only to the level of expertise that has gone into its creation, but also the level of threat that misinformation and disinformation poses to society.

CAI vs Project Origin vs C2PA

So, what exactly is the CAI? And what is Project Origin? And how will these fit with the C2PA project?

What is the CAI?

Led by Adobe, the CAI is a group that’s working on a secure end-to-end system regarding the provenance of digital content.

Who are members of the CAI?

The CAI was formed by Adobe, Twitter, and the New York Times, but has since added a large number of prominent names to its list of members, such as the BBC, Getty Images, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Truepic, and SmartFrame Technologies.

How does the CAI work?

The CAI gives photographers the option to automatically add tamper-evident time, date, location, and author details to an image at point of capture, which can then follow that image, unchanged, for the rest of its life.

In addition to these primary details, CAI data can be added every time that image is edited, logging anything from contrast tweaks, right through to composites. What’s more, by visiting a dedicated verification page, it’s possible to view versions of the image before and after edits, along with – if applicable – thumbnails of original images as they looked before they were combined.
Experience the CAI for yourself with the below image from renowned photographer David Yarrow, displayed using SmartFrame’s image streaming technology. Simply click on the information icon in the top left-hand corner of the image.

To read more about the collaboration between the CAI and SmartFrame, click here.

While the CAI’s current focus is images, it has earmarked other content that may eventually use the set of standards under development.

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

IPTC data vs CAI data

So what’s the difference between the existing EXIF and IPTC metadata, and the standard proposed by the CAI?

There are three main ways that CAI improves on IPTC. The first is detail. As outlined above, the CAI not only makes it possible to log when, where and how the image was created at the point of capture, but it also continues to add to this data set as the image evolves, providing complete transparency around its provenance.

The second is accessibility. CAI data can be viewed at the touch of a button when an image is displayed online, making it as easy as possible for even the least tech-savvy users to access the data, without the need for any specialist software.

The third advantage is security. CAI data is tamper-evident, meaning that once it is added, any alterations will be clearly visible.

What is Project Origin?

Formed by the BBC, Microsoft, CBC/Radio Canada and the New York Times – and joint-led by the former two organizations – Project Origin is an initiative that provides a way of quickly and reliably authenticating the provenance of a piece of media online.

It aims to achieve a similar goal to the CAI, but for broadcast media instead of still images.

How does Project Origin work?

Producers can register the final edit of a production with Project Origin and give it a digital fingerprint in the process. Using this unique identifier, a tamper-proof certification of authentication is created and stored securely on a distributed ledger. This certification can then be embedded into the media item before it is published.

A user’s browser will then compare the fingerprint of the media being played with the original fingerprint on the distributed ledger. If the media has been altered in any way from its original certified form, Project Origin will alert the user.

How will the CAI and Project Origin work together?

As outlined above, the CAI and Project Origin essentially aim to achieve the same thing in a slightly different way, for slightly different applications. And with plans in place to develop the CAI standards to include video among other types of media, the technologies would inevitably end up in competition with one another.

The C2PA changes all that, and while the technology may still be evolving, the collaboration between these players is firmly established.

“The CAI has been focused on the creator ecosystem on devices and on social media. Project Origin has been focused on the news media ecosystem, particularly on video,” explained Andy Parsons, Director of the CAI.

“I don’t want to leave the impression that these are the only [two] organizations,” Parsons continued, “but these have been the focal points that agreed, early on in the lifetime of the C2PA, would come together to develop technical standards in one place, and effectively learn from each other in these various ecosystems.”

What has changed with the formation of the C2PA?

While the overall goal of the C2PA has not changed from that which was set out in detail by both the CAI and Project Origin, the key point is that this force has been strengthened.

A number of powerful organizations linking arms and forging ahead in the same direction certainly bolsters the fight against misinformation and disinformation.

However, the C2PA is keen to stress that these specifications have been designed not to prevent bad actors from acting badly, but to instead equip users with the tools they need to make their own decisions on the trustworthiness of the content they’re viewing.

“We’re not saying that this piece of content can be trusted, we’re saying it comes from where it says it comes from and it’s not been manipulated on its way to you,” emphasized Ellis. “C2PA is going to help you to make those decisions, but it cannot make those decisions for you.”

How will the C2PA bring transparency to the digital world?

While the leaders of the new coalition are the first to acknowledge that this is the beginning of a long and challenging road to popular adoption of the standard, all agree that it will ultimately lead to a safer, better-informed digital world.

“Project Origin focuses on the professional news organizations and they work with their constituents to make sure we’re building the right thing,” explained Rosenthal. “CAI is doing the same sort of thing within the creative community.

So, it’s outreach, it’s education, it’s all these things – but all of it then comes together in the C2PA for the technical work.”

What is the scope of the C2PA?

With this concerted focus on educating the masses, you can expect to hear a lot more about the C2PA in the coming weeks, months, and years, in a broad spectrum of areas other than the primary – and arguably most important – areas of the media and human rights.

“We’ve gotten interest from a wide range of industry segments with regard to this technology – for example, the insurance industry, medical imagery, satellite imagery, the music business [and] government documents,” said Santiago Lyon, Adobe’s CAI Head of Advocacy and Education.

“Essentially, any piece of digital content that would benefit from more information about its provenance, regardless of where that interest arises or what the use case is. That’s how broad this is.”

This article was updated on January 28, 2022.

The post C2PA: Everything you need to know about the C2PA project appeared first on SmartFrame.

What is copyfraud? And what do NFTs have to do with it?

Matt Golowczynski — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:24:26 +0000

Copyfraud has received renewed attention in the past few months with the surge in popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). We explain what copyfraud is and how it relates to NFTs.

What is copyfraud?

Copyfraud describes the act of falsely claiming copyright over a work that’s in the public domain.

Any work that is usually subject to copyright can be the target of copyfraud, such as an image, a painting, a book or a piece of music.

Why is copyfraud a problem?

The latter part of the word underlines the incentive here: anyone claiming copyright over a work to which they do not legitimately hold it may be doing so to seek licensing fees or other payments from the use of these works.

Copyfraud cases have typically concerned organizations such as image libraries and heritage and cultural institutions, rather than individuals. These are, after all, more likely to want to display and publish works already in the public domain than an individual might. Of course, it’s also more believable that such an institution may actually hold the copyright to a piece of work in the public domain than an individual claiming the same thing.

This isn’t to say that an individual isn’t as capable of engaging in this kind of behavior, just that they are more likely to claim copyright over an image or another work whose copyright belongs to someone else, rather than to one in the public domain.

Do existing copyright laws help to prevent or encourage copyfraud?

Jason Mazonne, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois who coined the term, states in his 2006 paper on the subject that “copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials … While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare.” He goes on to state that copyfraud “stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech.”

Mazonne provides various examples of everyday media that contains some form of work purportedly protected by copyright, even if this work is actually in the public domain. Greeting cards bearing Monet’s Water Lilies, for example, or books containing Shakespeare’s plays. These will typically be published with a copyright notice that prohibits the reproduction of any part of the published work. But if part of that work contains something that’s already in the public domain, how can the publisher claim that no part of the work may be reproduced?

The fact that copyright – or more specifically, what copyright law does and doesn’t allow – is not that well understood makes it easy to exploit these misunderstandings.

While many photographers appreciate that they will have certain rights over an image they take, ones that prevent others from exploiting that work for commercial gain, they will have less knowledge around the appropriate use of orphan works, works in the public domain and works to which more than one copyright holder exists.

Furthermore, copyright law details not only what protections the copyright holder retains, but also what’s permissible by others without the copyright owner’s knowledge or consent.

As Mazonne explains: “Copyfraud is exacerbated when owners of valid copyrights interfere with lawful de minimis copying and fair use and thereby impose restrictions beyond what the law allows. These actions deter even limited reproduction of falsely marked public domain works, reproduction that would be lawful even if the works were in fact under copyright.”

Another factor behind the prevalence of copyfraud concerns the likelihood of a claim of infringement being challenged. An individual accused of copyright infringement by a large organization may not have the necessary funds and resources to defend themselves in the event of any dispute, which makes it likely that they will capitulate to the demands of the organization.

The fact that copyright law varies between countries, and does not last indefinitely, brings further complications.

Are these cases becoming more complex?

There have been a number of well-publicized cases concerning disputed copyright claims in recent years, and some of these have been particularly complex.

In some of these cases, these complexities can be traced back to the way in which the work was initially published by the creator. Many artists will publish their work on a social media platform or another online portal, and while these platforms will have their own terms around what content may be published, and the license that’s granted to them when this happens, a clash between these and copyright law can create problems – particularly if the person uploading the content is not actually its true copyright holder.

Of course, the ease with which such works can be stolen from these platforms and republished elsewhere only makes the problem worse. Entering images into competitions and not reading the small print around what rights and licenses are assigned to the organizers has also stung many photographers and content owners.

Can a creative work only partly be protected copyright?

Just as it’s entirely possible for an individual to know they do not hold copyright over a piece of work but claim to – and exploit this for financial gain – there are many grey areas around this that can further complicate legal challenges.

It’s not common, but it’s possible for a company or an individual to only own the copyright to part of a published work, one that is generally considered to be a single piece.

One recent example of this – which highlights just how convoluted these kinds of cases can be – concerned the song Happy Birthday to You.

In 1935, musical publisher Summy Co. registered copyright over a number of piano arrangements of the song, and charged licensing fees for those wishing to use it. In 1988, publisher Warner Chappell Music purchased the company and continued to claim licensing fees for the use of the song, which were estimated to reach around $2m per year.

In 2013, a documentary maker filed a legal suit against Warner Chappell, claiming that the copyright the company held only pertained to a piano arrangement of the melody, rather than the song and lyrics in its entirety, and argued that the song was in fact in the public domain.

The presence of the song and lyrics in songbooks published in 1922 and 1927 also preceded the 1935 copyright that was registered by Summy Co. This meant that even if it was originally protected by copyright, this would have since expired.

In the end, a judge ruled that Warner Chappell’s copyright did indeed only cover specific piano arrangements to the melody. The company disagreed, but ended up paying back $14m in licensing fees that it had collected over the years. The song was declared to be in the public domain in the US in 2016, and in the European Union at the start of 2017.

What do NFTs have to do with this?

The recent rise in popularity of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, has brought more focus on issues surrounding ownership, copyright and potential infringements. But before we examine why, it’s best to look at what an NFT actually is.

Non-fungible tokens detail the ownership of a digital asset of some kind, such as an image, a video, a collectible sports card or a tool used in a video game. “Non-fungible” simply means that the token cannot be replicated – and, therefore, interchanged with another token – because of something unique about it, much in the way that a piece of original art cannot be readily substituted for another.

The token itself resides on a blockchain, which is a public ledger, and this shows that a transaction took place and that there is an owner of this digital asset. In the case of an image, this could be a reproduction of an original image that is in some way unique. Exactly how it’s unique is another matter, although the copyright owner will have verified this in some way. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, for example, recently sold an NFT of his first tweet for $2.9m, and this contained the metadata of the tweet and a certificate signed by him.

It’s important to note that the token is not the original artwork, nor the copyright over the artwork itself. Much in the same way as when you buy a photographic print, you are not buying an original film negative or a raw file, or the copyright to the image itself, but a reproduction of the original work. The specific terms set by the seller or platform on which the NFT is purchased may detail exactly what permissions are included in the sale of the NFT.

All of this means that Jack Dorsey’s tweet still exists as a tweet, and can be embedded by anyone elsewhere. Like here.

just setting up my twttr

— jack (@jack) March 21, 2006

Part of the attraction of NFTs is that the blockchain on which they live makes it almost impossible to falsify ownership of the token once it’s recorded here. Blockchain architecture means that any kind of adjustment to the block that contains this transaction would require the falsification of every other block that precedes it. This is difficult as the ledger is publicly distributed, which means a record of the genuine transaction already exists in multiple locations elsewhere.

Another benefit is that the creator of a piece of work that is sold as an NFT can continue to receive a commission every time the NFT is subsequently resold.

But the fact that the creator retains the copyright to the asset itself means that there is no guarantee that another similar work won’t be created and sold in the same way in future. It is, after all, scarcity that gives the token value. And while the purchaser of the NFT may have a unique link that directs them to the asset online, the fact that it’s not the asset itself that’s being sold means that others may still be able to view some kind of copy of it themselves (such as Jack Dorsey’s tweet).

Another issue is that the asset itself is not on the blockchain, only the token is. This means that access to the asset relies upon the site on which it’s hosted staying online.

The issue of copyfraud starts to come into play when the seller of the NFT is not the true holder of the copyright. A similar issue has long been a problem for stock image libraries; their terms may require that anyone uploading images holds the necessary copyright to them, but anyone with access to a high-resolution image that has some kind of appeal to others may still try their luck and submit this in order to profit from any sales.

The difference with NFTs is that although the work itself is not being sold as the NFT – this being little more than a receipt – and copyright is not being assigned to anyone else, someone is still attempting to profit from the sale of an asset related to a creative work protected by copyright.

Whether this in itself would fall under the definition of copyfraud isn’t clear. What’s being sold is not an artwork in itself, but a token that represents it. The reproduction of the original asset linked from the NFT would not be allowed under copyright law if the sole intention was to profit from it, however, and this would go against the terms of any legitimate platform on which it’s sold. So, at the very least, this would likely be an infringement of copyright.

For obvious reasons, the art world has long attracted fraudsters, and there’s little reason to believe that the current craze for NFTs won’t encourage similar behavior. While most NFTs sell for less than $200, some have reached seven- and even eight-figure sums. Assuming a level of interest in NFTs remains, we should expect that claims of theft and related legal challenges will only become more common.

The post What is copyfraud? And what do NFTs have to do with it? appeared first on SmartFrame.

Image downloading attitudes: What our research shows

Matt Golowczynski — Fri, 15 May 2020 15:17:59 +0000

Why do most people download images? And what’s their awareness of copyright restrictions? We take a closer look at people’s behaviors and attitudes toward downloading images.

It’s hard to imagine the internet without images – it would certainly be a duller place.

But it’s easy to forget that all images were created by someone, and that certain restrictions will typically apply to their usage.

In an age where images are easily downloaded, shared on social media, and posted on websites without any accreditation, these factors are easily overlooked. Indeed, many people who download images may simply be unaware that such works are likely to be protected by copyright.

But it’s also clear that awareness of these factors isn’t enough to prevent unauthorized usage.

Many of us, for example, will have encountered images shared on social media or elsewhere with their stock library watermarks still in place. And while we may feel comfortable posting a well-known image that’s already in the public domain on social media or elsewhere, when it comes to sharing work from a photographer we personally know, we’re unlikely to share it quite as freely without their permission – particularly if it bears a watermark.

Research carried out by us last year showed there to be a broad range of reasons as to why people download images online, and varying levels of awareness as to what’s permitted when these images are used personally and publicly.

Among other things, we found that:

• search engines account for the majority of image searches and downloads
• almost one in three people will attempt to remove a watermark from an image
• one in two people download images more than once a week, while roughly one in five do so every day

What are the main reasons people download images?

Our research showed the most common reasons given for downloading images relate to personal rather than professional use.

Perhaps surprisingly, the most popular reason was to use such images as wallpaper on computers. 60% of respondents claimed to download images for this purpose, while 42% claimed to do so so they could use it in a similar way on their smartphones.

These were followed in popularity by a number of reasons that concerned sharing images on social platforms. 34% of people surveyed stated that they downloaded images to share with friends, with 24% downloading images to use as backgrounds on their social media sites, and 20% using these as profile pictures, both here and on online forums.

For what purpose(s) do you download images?

Only 6% of respondents cited professional social media management and/or content marketing as their intention for downloaded images, while 6% stated they intended to use these images for professional web or app design. A further 7% claimed to do so in order to create graphics or images for professional purposes.

How and where do most people look for images to download?

The vast majority of respondents stated that they looked for images they wanted to use through search engines. 85% of respondents answered that they used search engines to look for images, with 35% of people specifically mentioning Google Images.

How do you search for images online?

Unsurprisingly then, when asked where they usually downloaded images, 77% of respondents stated either Google or Google Images searches.

Where do you download images?

It’s clear that plenty of image downloading does, however, also take place elsewhere. Many respondents claimed to use stock libraries and social portals focused on photography, through to the official websites and social media pages of companies or brands in which they have some interest.

How do most people download images?

While many internet users now browse images through mobiles and tablets, our research indicates that the most common way to download images is through a right-click action on either a mouse or a trackpad, in conjunction with the ‘Save image as’ function.

How do you usually download images?

What proportion of online images and graphics do people believe are subject to copyright protection?

The majority of images and graphics online are subject to copyright, and cannot be used freely. Our research, however, shows no clear consensus among respondents when asked whether they believed this to be the case.

39% stated that they believed there were more freely available images online than those subject to copyright restrictions, while 31% stated the opposite. This left 30% of respondents stating that the numbers were roughly the same.

Which sentence best describes your views on images and graphics online?

It’s possible that the average respondent may not be fully aware of the distinction between an image that is subject to copyright but is available for licensing without cost, and an image that is in the public domain with no restrictions on its personal or commercial usage.

Do people believe the intended usage for an image determines whether downloading it infringes copyright?

56% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that downloading an image for personal (non-commercial) use did not violate the photographer’s copyright restrictions.

Downloading images for private, non-commercial use does not constitute a breach of copyright

With 30% of respondents undecided on the issue, only 15% stated that they did not agree with this statement to some extent.

How often do people download images?

When asked about the frequency of their downloading, half of all respondents said that they downloaded images more than once a week, while one in five claimed to do so every day.

How often do you download images?

Are watermarks effective?

The watermark is the most widely used method of protecting images, and continues to be used today by individuals, stock libraries and businesses. But does it discourage people from downloading images?

46% of respondents agreed to some extent that they didn’t like the presence of either a watermark or a website logo over an image, while 22% said the opposite. The remainder (32%) were undecided.

I don’t like it when there’s a watermark with text or a website logo on images

When asked whether they sometimes made any attempts to remove such watermarks, 29% responded in the affirmative.

Given that people may be using such images for both public and personal use, it’s reasonable to assume that they are more likely to attempt to remove a watermark if the image is destined to be used publicly.

Does download protection encourage users to look elsewhere for an image?

It’s reasonable to assume that, when attempting to download an image, most people will have experienced some form of protection that prohibits them from doing so in their chosen way. But do people persevere when they come up against this or simply look elsewhere?

If an image I like is protected from being downloaded, I look for another image that can be downloaded for free

Almost four in five respondents claimed that such a situation would force them to seek an alternative image that was not protected in the same way.

Are people prepared to pay for images?

Most people only intend to use images for personal reasons, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the majority do not pay for images they source online.

That said, the figure perhaps isn’t as high as might have been expected.

60% of respondents stated that they never bought images online, with the remaining 40% claiming to do so. However, 11% of these said that they only rarely used paid-for content.

Do you ever pay for images?

It’s important to note that, thanks to the wide availability of images under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license or similar, just because someone hasn’t paid for an image doesn’t necessarily mean they are using it without authorization.

Do people always adhere to image licensing agreements?

Interestingly, while many people claim to follow the terms of image licensing agreements, 43% of respondents did not either agree to some extent with this statement.

I always follow license requirements when using images downloaded from the internet

Almost one in eight people admitted that they did not always comply with these terms.

Notes and comments

While we expect that people truthfully answered the questions put to them, the nature of the subject being discussed means we should also expect that some may have answered certain questions a little less truthfully than others.

We have, for example, little reason to suspect that people were dishonest when asked about where they find images, although these same people may be less than candid when discussing their behavior around using images they know to be subject to copyright restrictions.

This research was carried out with the assistance of PMR Market Experts in May/June 2019. Representative research for internet users in Poland. Sample N=1,100.

Takeaways:

More than half the people surveyed believe that downloading an image for which they do not own any rights does not constitute an infringement of the photographer’s copyright, providing it’s for personal use, while many others are unsure.
The vast majority of image downloads are for personal rather than business use, and the most common reason for doing so is to use an image as wallpaper on a computer or smartphone.
Search engines are the main source of image theft, so protecting the appearance of images here is important if they are to be kept safe.
Many people choose to save images through right-click mouse/trackpad actions, which highlights the usefulness of being able to disable this functionality.
While the majority of people will not attempt to remove a watermark from an image they download, the fact that almost one in three people have attempted to do so indicates that the conventional watermark is not always adequate as a means of protecting images.
Should an image not be downloadable because of the measures put in place by the photographer or rights owner, most people will attempt to download a different image found elsewhere.

The post Image downloading attitudes: What our research shows appeared first on SmartFrame.

How to attach copyright information to every image you take

Matt Golowczynski — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:33:37 +0000

It’s easy to program your camera to add copyright information to all your images, and it takes less than a minute. Here’s how it’s done.

If you publish your images online, or send them to others for some reason, it’s a good idea to append copyright information to them.

While copyright itself is granted as soon as you capture an image, it can be difficult to know who owns the copyright to an image once it has made its way out into the wider world. For that reason, it’s good practice to make sure your name is embedded within the information attached to the file.

Thankfully, the process of doing this is very simple. You just need to set it up once on your camera and you can (largely) forget about it after this point.

This information will attach itself to the metadata of the image. This is information that’s bundled with the image, which usually tells you things like when the image was taken, what the camera settings were, and what camera was used to capture it.

It’s attached to both Raw and JPEG files too, so even if you process your Raw files on more than one occasion, you should retain this information whether you use JPEGs straight out of the camera or images from any Raw files you process.

How to attach copyright details to your photos

The way to attach this information varies between cameras, but this is usually done through an option found within the tools, setup or settings menu. Some cameras mark this menu by a wrench or cog icon.

Many modern Nikon cameras, for example, have this option within the Setup Menu (above), with separate fields for the artist and copyright details. Similarly, Canon users will usually find this option in the Tools menu (identified by a wrench), with the same author’s name and copyright details options as offered by Nikon.

What should you include here?

This means that you can add your website and the current year if you want this to appear in metadata, rather than just your name. Some photographers even add their phone numbers, which gives clients or prospective clients an easy way to contact them.

Should you also add copyright details to your image captions?

Up until now, we’ve been discussing how to add copyright to the metadata of your images, which is only visible if someone chooses to look at this in the file itself. This is different from a caption, which you can include alongside your images wherever they’re displayed. So do you need to add it to both?

It’s certainly a good idea to do so, if only to discourage people from trying to take your images and use them without your permission. While the most effective approach is to combine it with additional security settings such as right-click and drag-and-drop protection, our research shows that making it clear that an image is subject to copyright restrictions is often enough to deter potential thieves.

Forgot to do this before you uploaded your images to SmartFrame?

Fear not – you can add captions and copyright information to any of your SmartFrames, wherever they appear online, very quickly.

To add or edit details for individual images, log into your SmartFrame account and find the image in Images, before clicking on the three dots to the right of it and selecting Update metadata. Fill in the relevant details and, once you’re done, click Save for your changes to take effect.

To change information for all the images within a specific Theme, find your chosen Theme in Themes and click on the small pencil next to its name. Now select Continue, before selecting Caption from the left-hand-side menu and click the Add a Caption control. The caption you enter here will be added to all your SmartFrames within that Theme.

Top tips

If you choose to include the year in your camera’s copyright information, make sure to change it at the start of the new one. Consider setting yourself a reminder to do this on January 1st.
Make sure to delete this information when it comes to selling your camera. It may be erased upon a reset of the camera’s settings, although some cameras retain this information even after you’ve done this, so it’s worth double-checking this has been removed.
It sounds obvious, but make sure that copyright information is set to ‘on’ once you’ve entered this information. Many cameras do not automatically set this to be enabled when you update these details.

The post How to attach copyright information to every image you take appeared first on SmartFrame.

From Facebook and Instagram to Twitter and LinkedIn: What rights do social media sites have to your images?

Matt Golowczynski — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:26:00 +0000

Do you share your images online? Get up to speed with the rights the big social platforms have to them.

Over the past twenty years or so, as social media sites and image-hosting platforms have risen and fallen in popularity, the way in which we share images has also changed.

Sharing images as attachments in emails is one of the oldest approaches, and as many of us continue to use email as a means of communication, this has endured over the years as other methods have come and gone.

But today, at least for personal images, it’s far more common to attach these to a WhatsApp message, send them to Instagram, or create an album on a platform such as Facebook.

But from the perspective of the permissions and licenses, what actually changes when you post your images to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other sites? What rights do you retain and what do you relinquish? And what happens when you delete your content or your account?

Many users would be unhappy to find their images used without their knowledge, although very few people (if any at all) take the time to read through all the small print that may give these platforms the right to do so.

To help you get clued up on the issue, we take a look at what the main social media sites state in their terms of use and pick out the key points with regards to content.

Do you keep the copyright to your images on Facebook, Twitter and other sites?

Copyright is a broad and somewhat complex subject to explore fully. Thankfully, most social media sites make things simple for the photographer or other user publishing their own content, stating quite clearly in their terms of service that copyright over any posted content stays with the copyright owner.

Copyright is granted at the moment the image in question is created. So, as soon as you press the shutter-release button on your camera, or the capture button on your phone, the copyright is yours, whether or not your name appears in the metadata in any way. There is no need to apply for this.

That said, those in the US can register images for copyright with the United States Copyright Office. This is a chargeable service, but one that would make it easier to prove ownership where infringement has occurred.

What you agree to when posting content

Most social media sites state something similar to each other in their terms of service with regards to the rights and permissions to content uploaded to their platforms. These tend to boil down to three things.

First, the action of posting the content does not change copyright ownership. Second, you grant the platform a non-exclusive right to use the content in a number of different ways, which, among other things, usually includes transferring that licence to another entity. Finally, you should be the owner of the intellectual property rights (copyrights, trademarks and so on) to the content you post.

There are small differences between what each site claims, however, which are detailed below.

Facebook

The nub of Facebook’s terms is quite simple: you should own the intellectual property to the content that you post but you grant the platform certain permissions when you post it.

It states “you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content.”

So, while you retain the copyright to the images themselves, you do give Facebook a lot of control over how it can then use it. Some of these terms, such as ‘host’ and ‘distribute,’ are fairly standard; clearly there is a need for Facebook to host and use your images if you’ve decided to share them on Facebook.

Other terms, such as ‘modify,’ sound understandable if you consider that Facebook needs to be able to deliver this content in various forms, depending on how it’s being consumed.

‘Create derivative works,’ however, may alarm some users, particularly as this is not a term used by many other networks. On the face of it, it appears as an extension of ‘modify,’ although quite where ‘modify’ ends and ‘create derivative works’ begins is not clear.

And who exactly does Facebook intend to ‘transfer’ or ‘sub-license’ this license to? Whatever Facebook may or may not do with your content, by using its service you automatically give it permission to do plenty with it.

When it comes to deleting your content, Facebook states that the license you grant it expires once your content is deleted from its systems. A number of small caveats, however, show that this isn’t necessarily at the same time as you delete this content from your account. Facebook states that it may continue to exist elsewhere if:

“Immediate deletion is not possible due to technical limitations (in which case, your content will be deleted within a maximum of 90 days from when you delete it)”
“Your content has been used by others in accordance with this licence and they have not deleted it (in which case, this licence will continue to apply until that content is deleted)”
“Where immediate deletion would restrict our ability to: investigate or identify illegal activity or breaches of our Terms and Policies (for example, to identify or investigate misuse of our Products or systems); comply with a legal obligation, such as the preservation of evidence; or comply with a request of a judicial or administrative authority, law enforcement or a government agency.”

So, if your content has been used by others in some way, or if Facebook suspects that you have broken its terms (or the law), it may remain in its systems.

Instagram

Instagram has been owned by Facebook since 2012, so it’s no surprise that its terms of use say much the same thing as Facebook’s. Indeed, it’s Facebook, rather than Instagram, that’s named as the service provider here.

Once again, the thrust of the terms is clear. It states in bold, and with a bullet point, that “we do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it.”

You grant the platform “a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).”

Similar points to Facebook about content remaining on the system if it’s shared by others, as well as what happens if it suspects you’ve gone against their terms or the law, appear here too.

WhatsApp, which since 2014 has also been owned by Facebook, splits from the other services in this list in the sense that it’s more a messaging platform rather than a place to publicly share images with more than a handful of people.

Many people are aware that, unlike on many other sites, end-to-end encryption is also enabled as standard for all communications, although this relies on all parties involved using a version of the app released on 2 April 2016 or later.

Facebook’s ownership has, however, created some concern about the way in which content may be used across the two platforms – and the terms and conditions do address this. It states that “nothing you share on WhatsApp, including your messages, photos, and account information, will be shared onto Facebook or any of our other family of apps for others to see, and nothing you post on those apps will be shared on WhatsApp for others to see, unless you choose to do so.”

The license you grant to WhatsApp over your content, however, is pretty much the same as with Facebook and Instagram. “In order to operate and provide our Services, you grant WhatsApp a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works of, display, and perform the information (including the content) that you upload, submit, store, send, or receive on or through our Services.”

WhatsApp states that this license is “for the limited purpose of operating and providing our Services.” It also carries more agreeable terms over the storage of that content, stating that it does “not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Once your messages (including your chats, photos, videos, voice messages, files, and share location information) are delivered, they are deleted from our servers.”

The exception to this is that it will typically keep undelivered messages on its servers for up to 30 days if it cannot initially deliver them. “Your messages are stored on your own device. If a message cannot be delivered immediately (for example, if you are offline), we may keep it on our servers for up to 30 days as we try to deliver it. If a message is still undelivered after 30 days, we delete it. To improve performance and deliver media messages more efficiently, such as when many people are sharing a popular photo or video, we may retain that content on our servers for a longer period of time.”

Tumblr

As with Instagram, Tumblr makes it very clear that “you retain ownership you have of any intellectual property you post to Tumblr.”

As with Facebook’s portfolio of sites, you grant Tumblr “a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to use, host, store, cache, reproduce, publish, display (publicly or otherwise), perform (publicly or otherwise), distribute, transmit, modify, adapt (including, without limitation, in order to conform it to the requirements of any networks, devices, services, or media through which the Services are available), and create derivative works of, such Subscriber Content.”

That appears just as broad as the others, while the familiar line about the rights in the license being granted “for the limited purposes of allowing Tumblr to operate the Services in accordance with their functionality, improve and promote the Services, and develop new Services” also appears.

Interestingly, Tumblr elaborates on the ‘derivative works’ line that’s used by some other platforms. “The reference in this license to “creat[ing] derivative works” is not intended to give Tumblr a right to make substantive editorial changes or derivations, but does, for example, enable reblogging, which allows Tumblr Subscribers to redistribute Subscriber Content from one Tumblr blog to another in a manner that allows them to add their own text or other Content before or after your Subscriber Content.”

Tumblr also states that the license you grant it “continues even if you stop using the Services, primarily because of the social nature of Content shared through Tumblr’s Services – when you post something publicly, others may choose to comment on it, making your Content part of a social conversation that can’t later be erased without retroactively censoring the speech of others.” So, the license appears to be indefinite.

To its credit, Tumblr has placed the following point on a separate panel to make it particularly salient: “One thing you should consider before posting: When you make something publicly available on the Internet, it becomes practically impossible to take down all copies of it.”

LinkedIn is particularly keen to highlight that you retain copyright to all posted content, going so far as including a video to make this point within the terms themselves – although the terms regarding licensing are largely the same as they are elsewhere. “You own all of the content, feedback, and personal information you provide to us, but you also grant us a non-exclusive license to it…”

“… a worldwide, transferable and sublicensable right to use, copy, modify, distribute, publish, and process, information and content that you provide through our Services and the services of others, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or others.”

One thing that may raise an eyebrow in LinkedIn’s terms is the statement that you automatically grant a license not only to LinkedIn, but to its affiliates too. LinkedIn defines affiliates as “companies controlling, controlled by or under common control with us, including, for example, LinkedIn Ireland, LinkedIn Corporation, LinkedIn Singapore and Microsoft Corporation.”

The terms make it clear that the licence you grant expires once you remove the content, although the familiar caveat about this content remaining on the system if others have re-used it in some way, and “for the reasonable time it takes to remove from backup and other systems” remain.

LinkedIn also states that “while we may edit and make format changes to your content (such as translating it, modifying the size, layout or file type or removing metadata), we will not modify the meaning of your expression.”

Twitter

Twitter has separate terms for users in the US to those outside the US, although the specific clauses that relate to content appear to be the same across all territories.

Although these terms clearly state that any content you post is yours and remains yours once it’s been shared on the platform, and has similar-sounding terms regarding the license you grant it to the other sites here, some passages stand out. It claims, for example, a “royalty-free licence (with a right to sub-licence) use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute” content for “any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).”

You also agree that “this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.” It goes on to state that “this license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.”

These terms appear a little more aggressive than the others, although this appears to be at least in part in order to make Twitter work as its users expect it to.

Anyone who regularly sees tweets embedded in news articles or elsewhere may appreciate why Twitter wants this license to extend to publishing content on platforms other than Twitter’s own website and native apps.

Those familiar with how Twitter works will be aware of the need to allows other parties to share your content, and they will also no doubt be aware that the action of deleting a tweet will also delete it from anywhere else it’s been embedded – much like a SmartFrame.

“Any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)” is not an unusual clause, but one that may cause alarm nonetheless. Twitter will no doubt argue this is necessary in order to future-proof its service.

Conclusion

The terms discussed here typically appear as part of long agreements that many users will never take the time to read. While some platforms have sought to make the main points around copyright and usage clear in one way or another, these agreements are, on the whole, written in vague and complex legalese that give the platforms the right to do pretty much anything they want with your images, expect own them or their copyright.

Of course, it’s unlikely that these platforms would exercise the full rights granted by these licenses, and some do underline that the license is necessary for them to be able to serve your content in the expected way. And the more alarming points, such as those claiming a right to transfer or sublicense your content, may only simply be there to provide enough legal cover in the event of an acquisition or merger, rather than anything more sinister.

Regardless, it’s important to remember that by using these platforms you automatically consent to them to doing more with your content than many people would be comfortable with, were they to fully understand what they’ve consented to. As Tumblr’s terms point out, the moment you publish something publicly online, you lose the ability to control where that content goes and what is done with it, regardless of what you did or did not agree to. Just the fact that the terms of many sites have the words ‘transferable’ and ‘sublicensable’ should be alarming enough, given that this allows other, unspecified partners to use and modify your content too.

All of this is a problem for both individual creatives whose livelihoods depend on their work and businesses with images and other assets to protect. But, particularly for creatives, being able to promote themselves and their work on social platforms is necessary if they’re to make a living from it.

Many consider the risks to be small enough to continue posting their images and other content on these platforms, while others will only do so in a way that compromises the quality of the work, be it by posting a low-resolution sample of the content or protecting it with a watermark, or something else. SmartFrame’s approach, which combines thumbnail pull-throughs of images hosted on its own platform with the ability to view and interact with the image away from the social media site being used, circumvents the issues discussed here.

The information in the terms of service stated here is correct as of 11 November 2019.

The post From Facebook and Instagram to Twitter and LinkedIn: What rights do social media sites have to your images? appeared first on SmartFrame.