protection Archives - 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.

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

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

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

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

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

What is negative body image?

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

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

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

What were the findings of the report?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What defines a retouched image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

How to future-proof your digital images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using the most accessible digital image file format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting Raw

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

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

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

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

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

What is a DNG file?

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

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

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

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

Employing an effective digital image filing system

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing reliable digital image storage

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

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

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

Cloud storage

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

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

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

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

External hard drive

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

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

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

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

Second backup

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

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

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

RAID storage

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

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

Printing

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

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

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

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

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

The photography industry in 2022: What state is it in?

Peter Townshend — Fri, 05 Aug 2022 16:55:48 +0000

A number of recent studies have highlighted the challenges faced by professional photographers. Here, we examine the main issues and what can be done.

The photography industry was undoubtedly hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown restrictions brought a reduction in income for a large proportion of self-employed photographers around the world. But how has the industry recovered? And what can we expect from the future?

We take a closer look at two recent surveys that aim to provide an insight into the state of the photography industry in 2022.

A positive start

In April this year, the 2022 State of the Photography Industry Report was released. Conducted by photography web platform providers Format and Zenfolio, this report collates data obtained from a survey of 3,398 photographers from around the world.

Of those surveyed, 71% were full- or part-time, self-employed photographers, while the remaining 29% consisted of hobbyists, students, and full-time employees.

The survey confirmed the huge impact the pandemic had on business, with 63.8% of surveyed photographers experiencing a drop in activity. Alarmingly, this was a drop of more than 40% for 43.6% of respondents, illustrating the scale of the problem.

It’s easy to see why the effects were so profound, with 59.5% of respondents saying they generate revenue from photo shoots, which rely on face-to-face contact.

However, despite such gloomy results in 2021, the outlook for 2022 was positive, with 32.2% of photographers thinking that business will remain steady and 56.5% expecting things to get busier.

This outlook aligns with the more general expectation that there will be a surge in group events such as parties, weddings, commercial events, and trade shows after such a long period of isolation.

A profession in crisis

While the above report paints a hopeful picture for the industry in 2022, the State of Photography 2022 report, which arrived a month later, provides an altogether less positive assessment.

The report, which was compiled by researchers Tara Pixley, Martin Smith-Rodden, David Campbell, and Adrian Hadland, in collaboration with CatchLight and Knight Foundation, aims to provide an insight into how a photographer’s ethnicity, gender, disability, and nationality affect their chances of success in the industry.

The study focused on 1,325 photographers from 87 countries, with 49.46% of respondents identifying as female, 46.23% as male, and 1.97% as non-binary.

The results suggest that the pandemic had a long-lasting impact, with 54% reporting a “great deal” or “moderate” level of personal debt. In fact, 46% of women said they were considering leaving the profession altogether due to financial insecurity.

There was also found to be an overall disparity in pay for historically marginalized groups, specifically defined in the report as women, those identifying as non-binary, and people of color (POC), who reported a median income of $20,000-$29,999 per year, compared to $40,000-$49,999 for those who did not identify as being in any of these three groups.

This adds further negativity to an already discouraging finding that over half of respondents earn less than $40,000 a year after tax, and as much as 30% earn less than $20,000.

Furthermore, over half of respondents claimed to supplement their income with other work, suggesting that the photography industry alone is unable to support the lives of many of its members.

A challenging future

While the first of these studies offers a more hopeful outlook than the second, both point toward an industry that is currently facing challenges.

But while it has certainly had a significant impact in recent years, industry problems are rooted deeper than the difficulties brought by the pandemic. The democratization of photography, the arrival of the digital age, and overall image value leakage has meant decades of depreciation for the industry as a whole.

Research shows there were over 6.2 billion smartphone subscriptions worldwide in 2021. That equates to a single subscription for over 75% of the world’s population – and many of these phones will be equipped with a pocket-sized digital camera.

When you combine this with the arrival of the internet and the insecure image formats that are used to display photographs reportedly leading to €532.5bn of annual losses, it’s clear that something needs to change if the photography industry is to remain sustainable.

New opportunities

While wider access to more advanced photo equipment is not something that can or should be stopped, the same can’t be said for photography value leakage. Indeed, its prevention could play a key role in the survival of the industry.

Sitting at the heart of the problem are the current online image file formats such as JPEG, PNG, and GIF, which can be easily stolen with a right-click, screenshot, or drag-and-drop action.

There are a number of ways photographers can try to combat this, such as watermarking, downsampling, and adding copyright information to image captions or metadata, but none provide a complete solution. They either sacrifice image quality or user experience, both of which can themselves have a detrimental impact on the value of an image.

The key to solving this issue is by protecting images from being stolen in the first place.

Technology such as image streaming can provide protection against right-clicks, drag-and-drop actions, and screenshots, while at the same time enhancing user experience through interactive features such as multi-level zoom and full-screen viewing.

This technology also allows photographers to view image analytics data and even control image distribution, with optional share buttons and the ability to block domains if required.

What’s more, when images are streamed, it’s possible to serve contextually targeted digital ads in the frame. This opens up a whole new revenue stream for photographers as a share of the ad revenue goes straight into the image owner’s pocket.

Conclusion

The 2022 State of the Photography Industry and State of Photography 2022 reports provide evidence of how the effects of the pandemic, combined with decades of devaluation, mean it’s now harder than ever to earn a living as a photographer, especially for marginalized groups.

It’s a clear warning that something needs to be done to ensure the profession remains sustainable in the modern digital world.

With value leakage and low income forming a large part of the issue, further exacerbated by a disparity of pay and opportunity, image streaming offers a way to secure assets, boost engagement, reach wider audiences, and increase revenue, all with minimal disruption.

The online digital landscape is constantly evolving. So isn’t it time to question why we continue to use the same image formats online that we always have?

The post The photography industry in 2022: What state is it in? 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.

How Minden Pictures uses SmartFrame for its stunning nature images

Peter Townshend — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 00:38:33 +0000

Take a closer look at how Minden Pictures utilizes SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology to showcase the very best of its nature photography

Minden Pictures is a premium collection of nature and wildlife stock photography that encompasses a wide range of species, regions, and topics.

With a team of award-winning natural history photographers behind it, Minden Pictures’ collection uses powerful imagery to illustrate not just the beauty of the natural world, but also the threats it faces.

Our image-streaming technology enables Minden Pictures to stream high-resolution images from a secure central server to an unlimited number of approved websites without a single copy being made – much like embedding a YouTube video.

This allows Minden Pictures to display its collection online in brilliant quality without the fear of theft, misuse, or slow loading times.

Interactive features

Each SmartFrame also features interactive in-image controls that help to boost user engagement.

Whether it’s the finest macro details, the second a predator pounces, or an immersive faraway landscape, the full-screen viewing mode helps to present these striking moments in all their glory, while built-in sharing controls maximize organic reach.

Furthermore, easy-to-read, embedded captions and photographer credits ensure Minden Pictures’ SmartFrames always appear in context, with proper attribution, wherever they’re published.

Below we’ve picked a few favorite examples of how our technology is complementing this stunning photographic collection.

Our top nature photographs from Minden Pictures

Relish the moment

This photograph epitomizes the importance of being in the right place at the right time – for everyone except the salmon, of course. Take some time to appreciate it in all its full-screen glory.

Get closer to this adorable amphibian

The relaxed pose, the beautiful golden skin, and that irresistible smile. There’s lots to love about this photo (and this frog).

Explore a landscape that’s out of this world

The rising dune in the background of this image resembles the scorched sky of a faraway planet, beautifully illustrating both the vastness of the desert and the otherworldliness of this uninhabitable environment.

Lose yourself in the crowd

Brilliant photographs like this rely so much on detail that they can never truly shine in the current online image ecosystem. SmartFrame’s full-screen viewing mode lets you experience every detail without affecting loading times.

Appreciate the full span

When viewed in full screen, the wide angle used to capture this flash of color from the wings of a northern flicker puts you right at the heart of the action.

This cliff needs to be scaled up

Enter the full-screen mode to enlarge this striking photograph and be reminded of just how small we really are.

Make the full stretch

From the split-second timing to the pleasing composition and stunning color, this remarkable image has it all – go big to enjoy every bit.

Look again …

If anything deserves a closer look, it’s this fascinating shot of a leaf-tail gecko living up to its name.

Share the experience

Like what you see? It’s possible to share any of these SmartFrames via social media and email, or through a direct link. Alternatively, you can publish them on your website in the same way we have in this article.

Simply click the integrated Share button in the top-right-hand corner of the SmartFrame and follow the instructions.

NOTE: Certain restrictions apply, so please familiarize yourself with Minden Pictures’ Embed Terms and Conditions before sharing.

Explore more of Minden Pictures’ fascinating collection here, or browse the rest of our website to discover what SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology is doing for content owners

The post How Minden Pictures uses SmartFrame for its stunning nature images appeared first on SmartFrame.

Creating new revenue for photo agencies: Joel Miller talks image monetization

Peter Townshend — Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:38:10 +0000

Joel Miller, Global Director of Content Sales at SmartFrame Technologies, discusses new opportunities in the stock photo industry and describes his role in protecting and monetizing digital image content

What brought you to the position you’re in today?

Fresh out of film school, and after a year working as an assistant film editor, I decided to work for one of the first stock motion agencies, Film Search, which was bought by The Image Bank (and then ten years later, Getty Images).

I spent 12 years running sales divisions for The Image Bank and The Associated Press’s Wide World Photos (now called AP Images). After that, I moved to the vendor side, helping photo agencies monetize image assets through print-on-demand services, and then compliance where I led two of the world’s largest copyright-compliance businesses: PicScout and ImageRights International.

In February of 2020, I joined SmartFrame. Given the company’s focus on both protecting and monetizing images, it felt like a perfect fit.

How did you get involved with SmartFrame?

During my time working for compliance companies, I saw SmartFrame at all the industry conferences and quickly became interested in what it was trying to do.

It made a lot of sense, but I knew it would take some convincing since so many agencies had almost become dependent on copyright infringement and compliance. Once I saw that monetization was part of SmartFrame’s plan, I was excited and came on board.

Describe your role at SmartFrame

SmartFrame’s primary focus is to monetize images through in-image advertising.

There are three pillars to that effort: image owners, publishers, and advertisers. My focus is the first of the three, so I work with photo agencies and content providers to make their images available to publishers as SmartFrame embeds.

My goal is to bring agencies and content providers to this new model so we can increase their overall revenue through in-image advertising. The current model of image licensing will never go away, but how that content is delivered will change.

Delivering it through streamed embeds will not only protect image content from copyright infringement and loss of attribution, but also bring additional revenue through in-image advertising.

What have been the biggest changes to the industry during your career?

The digital age. When I first started in the photo industry, clients either searched for images through catalogs that were sent out multiple times a year, used lightboxes to view chromes that were curated by researchers and shipped, or came in to view chromes on agency lightboxes.

When I worked in the NY Image Bank office, we had a row of ten giant lightboxes that were often filled with clients or company researchers, and we had a traffic division that spent hours a day chasing down chromes from clients that held onto them for too long. The digital age changed all of that!

What are the biggest challenges faced by image libraries and content owners today?

Protecting images and finding new ways to monetize them are probably the biggest industry challenges.

Once an image gets licensed and used by a client, it is no longer ‘protected’ and is lost in the wind without attribution. Anyone can simply drag and drop it to their desktop.

It’s why so many agencies today rely heavily on copyright tracking and compliance companies, depending on, and forecasting for, that revenue.

The real challenge is finding meaningful ways to monetize their images that make it either easier for their clients to use – integrating APIs, for example – or making the image more valuable for their clients, such as by having the image do more with CTAs, ad revenue, and the generation of data and analytics.

What are the biggest opportunities?

While the nature of the online ecosystem has presented problems for the industry, this freedom to easily view, share, and repurpose images has also opened up huge opportunities.

Image libraries are currently spending a large amount of time and resources trying to discover illegal use of their images, which can often feel like fighting a losing battle.

Instead of working against this free-sharing culture, it’s now possible to work with it, and even make money out of it. By streaming images rather than using easy-to-steal formats like JPEGs or PNGs, stock libraries can better protect their assets while making money from in-image advertising.

Under this ‘get-paid-as-you-go’ model, the more views an image gets, the more revenue it generates. This means that what has historically been the scourge of the industry becomes its biggest generator of income.

What does the future of the industry look like to you?

The digital age has brought with it challenges for the stock industry, but I believe the potential opportunities outweigh the negatives.

Image streaming offers a new monetization model for stock libraries that can generate enough fresh revenue to match and exceed the traditional licensing model for online images.

Considering that global digital advertising spend amounted to $521.02bn in 2021, I think it’s a very exciting time for the industry. We’re on the brink of a whole new era of photography in which more money goes in the right pockets.

The sooner libraries adopt this new monetization model the better equipped they’ll be for the future.

The post Creating new revenue for photo agencies: Joel Miller talks image monetization appeared first on SmartFrame.

Browser fingerprinting: Everything you need to know

Peter Townshend — Fri, 27 May 2022 09:43:44 +0000

Browser fingerprinting was invented to help keep our online data safe, but in many cases, it does the exact opposite. Here, we take a deep dive into this covert online tracking technique.

Online user privacy has been a much-discussed topic in recent years, with a slew of news stories revealing the misuse of sensitive data by some of the biggest names in the tech business.

The result has been an almost universal rejection of the third-party cookie, which to date has been the most prevalent online tracking tool. However, the third-party cookie is not the only way to track a user’s online behavior.

In this article, we explore browser fingerprinting, which is an accurate form of online tracking that is highly evasive, difficult to trace, and, as yet, unregulated.

What is browser fingerprinting?

Browser fingerprinting is a term used to describe the act of discreetly gathering software and device settings data through an internet user’s browser when they’re online. This combination of settings is then used to build a unique identity – or ‘fingerprint’ – for that individual. It’s also sometimes referred to as ‘device fingerprinting’ or simply ‘fingerprinting’.

How does browser fingerprinting work?

Every time you visit a website, your browser has to provide the hosting server with a certain amount of essential information to ensure the website works properly for your individual machine.

These pieces of information could include device model and spec, language and keyboard layout, location, time zone, installed hardware, software versions, and much more.

Individually, these settings and configurations might seem innocuous – and they are. But when put together, they can create a unique combination or ‘fingerprint’.

Considering the number of connected devices worldwide (projected to hit 38.6 billion in 2025), browser fingerprinting can be surprisingly accurate. This study, for example, found that 83.6% of tested browsers were unique.

What is browser fingerprinting used for?

Fingerprinting is reportedly used by over a quarter of the top 10,000 websites online.

Many of these sites use device fingerprints to maximize the user experience for their audience or to keep accounts secure. However, many others use it to track user activity and then pass that information on to data brokers who will sell it to various ends.

Security

Browser fingerprinting was originally developed to track and block devices associated with suspicious activity. These could be botnets using multiple devices and locations to access online accounts, phishing scammers creating numerous social media profiles, or bad actors using repetitive trial-and-error tactics.

Fingerprinting is such an efficient identifier that it can bypass private browser windows, virtual private networks (VPNs), and other evasion measures to track this activity, making it harder for fraudulent internet users to conceal their actions.

While it is not foolproof, browser fingerprinting can form an integral part of a robust security strategy when combined with other anti-fraud measures.

Marketing

Such an effective way to identify and track user activity has inevitably drawn the attention of the digital advertising industry.

Global digital ad revenue totaled $378.16bn in 2020 and much of this relied on targeted advertising. In an industry of this size, data is considered to be extremely valuable because it enables marketers to accurately personalize their campaigns.

For example, if a global tour company can see from your online activity that you have booked a holiday to Paris, it will know to serve you advertising that specifically promotes its Paris tours. Furthermore, if it can see that you also have an interest in art because of the websites you have visited, it could be even more specific by promoting its ‘Paris Gallery Tour’.

By working with websites, ad tech companies can recognize a user’s fingerprint when they arrive on a web page and, in a split second, serve an ad that matches their behavior profile.

Privacy concerns

While personalized digital advertising may not be a huge issue for many – research suggests it is even welcomed by some – there are other, more concerning possible uses.

It is very hard to cite specific cases due to the lack of transparency surrounding the practice, but they could include fingerprinting data being used to pre-qualify a user for certain services or to inform dynamic pricing.

An example of the latter is the aforementioned tour company charging you more than others after using your device fingerprint to see that you are located in an affluent area and recently shopped for designer clothing.

While there may never be a specific name associated with a user’s digital fingerprint, there are undoubtedly potential privacy issues to be considered.

Browser fingerprinting vs cookies

While essentially used for the same purpose – identification and tracking – there are some big differences between cookies and fingerprinting.

Storage

Cookies are stored on a user’s device, which means they can be easily blocked or deleted. Device fingerprints are stored remotely, which makes them very difficult to control.

Regulation

The General Data Privacy Regulations (GDPR) in the EU and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the US have both imposed rules that regulate the use of cookies for the protection of user privacy, with hefty fines for those who break them.

Fingerprinting, on the other hand, is unregulated, which gives more freedom to those who collect this data.

Transparency

The above regulations have brought transparency to the use of cookies, whereby websites must notify a user that they will be capturing data, explain what it will be used for, and offer them the opportunity to opt out.

Fingerprinting takes place covertly using data that is necessary for websites to work properly. This makes it very difficult for a user to even detect the activity, let alone opt out.

Reliability

Cookies are unique pieces of tracking code that are placed directly onto a user’s device, which makes them very reliable.

Conversely, fingerprinting relies on probability rather than certainty. While it can be very accurate, it inevitably leaves some room for error.

Browser fingerprinting methods

Aside from recording top-level configurations such as software versions, extensions, cookie settings, and languages, to name a few, there are additional more intricate fingerprinting techniques that can be used. Some examples of these are below – and the more of these that are used together, the more accurate the fingerprint will be.

Canvas fingerprinting

Most websites are constructed using HTML coding, which features an element called canvas. Using this element, websites are able to force browsers to draw a picture and text behind the scenes during a user’s visit.

When devices are configured differently, they render this image and text in a slightly different way, which reveals a whole host of information about a device’s graphics hardware, such as its graphics processing unit (GPU), graphics driver, or graphics card.

Using this information, the device is assigned a unique hash that serves as an identifier (or ‘canvas fingerprint’).

WebGL fingerprinting

Web Graphics Library (WebGL) is a JavaScript Application Programming Interface (API) that works alongside HTML Canvas to render 2D and 3D images.

The WebGL fingerprinting process is the same as canvas fingerprinting in that it forces a user’s device to draw an image in the background without their knowledge, records its graphics hardware information, then assigns it an identification hash.

Audio fingerprinting

In a similar way that canvas fingerprinting uses HTML Canvas to measure how a device renders an image, audio fingerprinting uses the Web Audio API to measure how a device produces sound.

Connected device fingerprinting

Connected device fingerprinting is a technique that gathers information about the media devices connected to a user’s machine. This could include external devices such as headphones or speakers, together with internal devices like sound cards or video cards.

What data makes up a device fingerprint?

There is a wide range of different data that’s gathered using various methods, and this all comes together to create a device fingerprint. Here is a list of some of the most common types.

IP address	User-agent string
Installed fonts	Installed hardware
Cookie settings	Screen resolution
OS version	HTTP header attributes
Language settings	Browser extensions
Keyboard layout	Audio fingerprinting data
Browser privacy	HTML canvas fingerprinting data

Is browser fingerprinting illegal?

No, browser fingerprinting is not illegal. While it has raised concerns and opposition from privacy advocates, there is nothing to stop a website from fingerprinting users as they visit.

The GDPR and CCPA regulations imposed strict rules to protect online privacy, although the main focus is cookies and therefore they do not apply to data obtained through fingerprinting.

The reason fingerprinting can dodge these regulations is that it only uses what is considered to be public information. No personal data is gathered during the fingerprinting process, therefore no current laws are being broken.

There are, however, plans to regulate browser fingerprinting in the EU, which – as GDPR did with cookies – could spark momentum towards a global standard.

The proposed ePrivacy Regulation is set to apply the same rules to fingerprinting that currently govern the use of cookies. However, at the time of writing it is still in the trilogue process and is therefore subject to change.

How to prevent browser fingerprinting

Fingerprinting is difficult to prevent – and there are two main reasons for this.

The data gathered is essential for websites to work properly, so preventing them from taking it would significantly diminish a user’s browsing experience.
Fingerprinting data is stored off-device, which makes it very difficult to find, control, and remove.

Ad blockers, private browsing windows and VPNs

The use of ad blockers, private browsing windows, and VPNs can help by hiding certain data such as a user’s real IP address and location. However, their use does nothing to hide the more detailed information covered earlier in this article.

In fact, using any of these tools could actually add a whole new facet to a device’s configuration that would not have been there before.

Privacy-focused browsers

Aside from making a device less unique by using default settings wherever possible, the most effective defense against fingerprinting is to use a privacy-focused browser such as Firefox, Brave, or Tor.

Firefox, for example, combats fingerprinting by blocking third-party requests from websites known to partake in the activity. While this is a positive step, it is limited to the websites its provider (Mozilla) is aware of and is therefore not a watertight solution.

Brave’s protection against fingerprinting also makes use of a blocking technique, but this is complemented by randomization. This means it attempts to make a user’s device appear different to a fingerprinting tool each time it visits a website. While this combination certainly bolsters protection, it is unable to stop the most determined of fingerprinting tools.

Tor’s technique, on the other hand, is to make every user’s browser fingerprint the same, which provides a level of anonymity among the crowd.

While this protection is considered to be strong, there are some downsides. The most significant of these is relatively slow loading speeds, which occur as a result of the software working hard to disguise a user’s identity.

Also, because of Tor’s popularity with users who do not want to be tracked, it is regarded with suspicion by many authorities. Therefore, somewhat ironically, it could actually end up attracting attention from parties that are arguably more concerning than the marketing executives most users are trying to avoid.

Reluctant acceptance

There’s no doubt that combining these measures with efforts to make a device less unique by using default settings wherever possible can make fingerprinting more difficult.

However, the bottom line is that complete prevention is impossible. Therefore, at least for the time being, fingerprinting is something that goes part-and-parcel with internet usage.

Until relevant regulations are introduced, it’s worth considering whether the risk of fingerprinting is a price you are prepared to pay for the content you are consuming.

Will fingerprinting replace third-party cookies?

With the EU’s ePrivacy Regulation still in progress, it is impossible to predict exactly what the future holds for browser fingerprinting. However, considering the general public’s increasing awareness of personal data collection and misuse, coupled with a lack of transparency around how fingerprinting is being used, it is probably safe to expect some attempt at regulation in the future.

For example, one academic study found that 85.5% of users were concerned about browser fingerprinting and 78.5% felt that being protected from it was important to them.

With overwhelming majorities like this, some form of change is likely. But to what extent these regulations will go – and indeed how effective they will be – remains to be seen.

Regardless of the efficacy of these potential regulations, with such low user opinion, it would be remiss of brands and marketers around the world to rely on fingerprinting as a replacement for the third-party cookie. Instead, investment in alternative forms of targeting such as contextual advertising – which is regarded by many as having a big role in the future of the industry – would be a better alternative.

The post Browser fingerprinting: Everything you need to know appeared first on SmartFrame.

Historic England launches Aerial Photo Explorer tool using SmartFrame’s technology

Peter Townshend — Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:47:11 +0000

Historic England has launched its Aerial Photo Explorer tool, which uses SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology to showcase hundreds of thousands of previously unavailable aerial images

It is now possible to gain a truly unique view of how England’s landscape has evolved over the past 100 years thanks to Historic England’s brand-new Aerial Photo Explorer tool.

Accessible from the Historic England website, this new feature lets visitors use an interactive map to search, scroll, and zoom in to landmarks across the country. When a location is selected, it opens a SmartFrame containing one of over 400,000 available aerial images that span an entire century.

By making it possible to view evidence of medieval settlements, see famous industrial landmarks in their heyday, and marvel at modern-day architectural wonders, this tool provides a fascinating glimpse into England’s past and present, while documenting its continued transformation into the future.

The collection is being made available as part of the ongoing digitization of over six million aerial photographs preserved in the Historic England Archive. As such, it will be continually updated with new images from the collection.

Enhanced user experience

The Aerial Photo Explorer is a great example of how SmartFrames and their interactive features can be used by image owners and publishers to fantastic effect. The Hyper Zoom function enables viewers to zoom in to the finest details of each image, while full-screen viewing offers an even more immersive experience, all without affecting page loading times.

By enabling the Share function in the top right-hand corner of each image, Historic England has also made it possible for site visitors to legally share its images on social media and even embed them on their own websites for free.

The latter can be achieved by simply clicking the ‘Embed’ button, copying the code, and pasting it into the text editor on the back end of a website (be sure to read Historic England’s terms and conditions beforehand).

By doing this, you are streaming the image from its original source file rather than making a copy, much like embedding a YouTube video.

Another great benefit of image-streaming is the ability to embed SmartFrame Captions at source – a feature put to good use here by Historic England. These captions ensure every image features a permanently attached credit that will follow it wherever it is streamed. Many also specify the landmark and location the image depicts, further improving the user experience.

Behind-the-scenes benefits

The benefits for the user are clear for all to see, but there are also huge advantages behind the scenes for Historic England. By using SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology, the organization is able to better secure its images against theft while maintaining complete control over their distribution.

This is achieved through right-click and screenshot protection, which helps prevent bad actors from making copies of Historic England’s image files, whether intentional or otherwise. The same security protects its photographs from image-scraping bots that can steal countless files in seconds.

In addition to this enhanced security, SmartFrame provides Historic England with detailed image analytics, which deliver valuable insights into how users are interacting with its content.

It is possible to see the number of impressions each SmartFrame has enjoyed, along with the amount of engagement it has received.

With all this security and control, Historic England can ensure its extensive archive of images is not only protected, but always used in context and for agreeable means.

The post Historic England launches Aerial Photo Explorer tool using SmartFrame’s technology appeared first on SmartFrame.

Twitter’s private information policy update is positive – but more could be done

Peter Townshend — Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:24:08 +0000

Twitter recently announced an expansion of its private information policy to include media. But what does this mean for users? And could more be done?

The damage that can be caused by the unauthorized distribution of private media online is an ongoing issue. This can come in many forms, but arguably the place in which it can be most damaging is social media.

There are billions of images posted on social media platforms every day, each one of them completely unprotected against theft. A simple right-click or drag and drop is all it takes for an individual to copy an image, one that can then be distributed anywhere, in any context, for any purpose.

We’ve written extensively about the importance of protecting images of you and images you own online, and the consequences you could face if you don’t.

Learn more: How to protect your images on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites

In some cases, it’s possible to see the funny side of this. B.J. Novak, for example, star of The Office, was amused to discover his face being used to market products around the world without his knowledge or consent.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, it can destroy reputations, aid radicalization, and undermine democracy among other things.

We have long believed that more needs to be done to prevent this issue at source, so we were pleased to hear Twitter’s recent announcement that it will be expanding its private information policy to include media.

What changes has Twitter made?

In a recent blog post, Twitter made the announcement that it is adding ‘private media’ to its list of things that cannot be shared on its platform without the owner’s permission.

An important thing to note here is that this isn’t about protecting the creator or copyright owner of the media – that’s covered in Twitter’s copyright policy. Instead, these changes protect the person featured in the media itself, aiming to prevent the sharing of “media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted.”

There are, of course, already general rules in place to prevent abusive behavior, which cover the use of images in this way, plus a non-consensual nudity policy to help prevent intimate photos being shared of someone without their permission.

However, the existing rules revolve around motive. The key difference with this new update is that the rules now apply to any images that are shared without permission of the private individual featured, regardless of intention.

How do the changes affect news media?

There is a caveat to Twitter’s policy changes, which is that they do not apply to “media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”

You can interpret this as you will, but Twitter does follow it up by confirming that all images of public figures are still covered by the aforementioned abusive behavior and non-consensual nudity policies.

How is it enforced?

To detect and police this issue, Twitter initially requires an authorized representative to file a first-person report to confirm unwarranted usage.

Once this report has been received, Twitter will act in accordance with its range of enforcement options, which can be found here.

How effective is it?

While Twitter’s intentions are undoubtedly good, the new rules have already been subject to abuse, as reported by The Washington Post.

Just two days after the changes were made, Twitter mistakenly suspended the accounts of a number of anti-extremism researchers and journalists, following an influx of “coordinated and malicious reports” from far-right extremists attempting to remove their images from said accounts.

In a follow-up report, Twitter admitted errors and said it is working to fix the issues and make sure the rule is used as it should, but it’s clear there are still teething problems to address.

Unanswered questions

This abuse stems from a lack of clarification as to exactly what constitutes a breach of these new rules. In Twitter’s own words, “this update will allow us to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, provided it’s posted without the consent of the person depicted.”

Such a vague explanation has been met with criticism, as it seems to invite more questions than it answers.

The policy wording itself does attempt to offer more clarity by listing the following as reasons for media not being in violation:

– the media is publicly available or is being covered by mainstream media;
– the media and the accompanying tweet text add value to the public discourse or are shared in public interest;
– contains eyewitness accounts or on the ground reports from developing events;
– the subject of the media is a public figure.

However, this still leaves many potential questions from photographers unanswered.
What, for example, constitutes consent? How exactly is permission proved? To what extent does someone need to be in the image for permission to be necessary? What about someone captured in a street scene? What if they are not recognizable – does permission still need to be sought in this instance?

Until these questions are answered, we would expect to see more erroneous account suspensions, and as a result, legitimate journalists and activists leaving the social network in search of more favorable platforms. And the irony to this is that it’s only likely to lead to a reduction in genuine, informative, newsworthy content on Twitter, which is the very content it is trying to promote.

Part of a bigger picture

In recent years, Twitter’s association with fake news has been widely reported. Who could forget the spread of disinformation in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, or Donald Trump’s subsequent use of the platform? Twitter took action by blocking Trump’s official account and, with the ban still in place, it’s not taking any chances.
Twitter is also working with Adobe, Microsoft, the BBC, The New York Times and a long list of other huge names in tech and publishing to establish a new standard for media provenance across the wider web. The collaboration is called the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), and it has recently released its draft specification to the public.
Of course, provenance data doesn’t prevent someone from sharing media that features you without your permission, but it is currently being integrated with image-streaming technology, which would add a new level of image protection.
By streaming all images from one master copy, much like a YouTube video, there would be far fewer copies made of offending images, in turn making the new rules much easier to police.
In the future we hope to see Twitter join the dots between these new technologies and its tighter private information policy to reach a truly holistic solution.

Conclusion

We welcome this change and believe it is another positive move in the right direction, but it’s clear that more clarification as to what constitutes a breach of the rules – and how a breach should be proven – is necessary.
However, even with absolute clarity, this policy change only contributes to a treatment for the issue, and does nothing to prevent it. We believe the answer is to go a step further.
By combining these new rules with image-streaming technology to secure images against theft and C2PA data to prove an image’s origin, Twitter could lead the way in creating a truly safe media ecosystem.
Users could make an informed decision about whether to trust what they see, and could rest assured that what they share is protected. And if a streamed image breaches the rules, it could be quickly and easily traced to the source without any additional copies being made.
In a digital world where fake news and online abuse are rife, this would not only be a welcome evolution of the social media landscape, but would also provide a model for the future of internet-wide image display.

The post Twitter’s private information policy update is positive – but more could be done appeared first on SmartFrame.