New Site Launched to Encourage Embedding of Metadata

A major initiative to encourage the direct embedding of descriptive and rights information into all manner of digital media has just been launched. Photometadata.org endorses the effort and is helping to spreading the word.

“A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but permanently attached descriptions are worth a lot more as photos travel through the digital world. A campaign has been launched now to embed descriptive and rights information in digital media and to retain it during the whole life cycle.

The initiative has been launched by the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A's), and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), with the support of trade organisations representing visual arts and photo agencies. It aims to establish the practice of applying descriptions and the copyright status of the content as metadata, and to embed it permanently during the electronic exchange of digital photo, text, audio or video files.

This practice is based on the principles defined by the Embedded Metadata Manifesto on the web site www.embeddedmetadata.org which invites organisations and individuals to support the campaign.”

Why can't I insert metadata at the capture stage?

Mike Ashenfelder from the Library of Congress interviewed me recently for an article on their website Titled "Mission Possible: An Easy Way to Add Descriptions to Digital Photos." He was asking why adding information (metadata) to images is so difficult. I told him that this was an issue I had raised at the First International Photo Metadata Conference in 2007. I noted that photographers need ways to insert metadata as early as possible in the process; and asked why it wasn't possible to have some device that could be used to input information and tag it to the images I was shooting at the time of capture. There were engineers from Canon and Nikon in attendance, and it seemed that they understood the question, but I'm not aware of any progress in this area.

However, since manufacturers and developers do seem respond to input from those who purchase their products, perhaps what is needed is a grass roots appeal? With that in mind, I've included details on how to contact several of the larger digital camera manufacturers. If a number of you contact them, asking if they are working on improvements on how metadata (information) can be added to the Exif or IPTC at the time of capture, perhaps something will change?

Ask them "Why isn't there a 'Add Description' button for my camera?"
 Nikon:
In the section labeled "Inquires" select your country and region for a listing of who to contact. In the US you can call Nikon Technical Support from 8AM - 2AM (Eastern) 7 days a week at 1-800-645-6687.

Canon: To contact Canon by email
In the US you can you can call Customer Service 1-800-385-2155

Sony:
Pentax: In the USA call Toll Free: 1-800-224-6767

Olympus: In the USA call Digital Camera support Monday-Friday, between 9am-9pm Eastern at 1-888-553-4448

Samsung:
There are options to email, phone, or live chat from the link above. 

Let us know if you find anything out by adding a note in the comments below.

Running the Sidelines: Finding a photo's photographer

Adding Photo Metadata to Your Images

Can Embedded Photo Metadata Help Your Website SEO?

There have been a number of recent articles pushing the idea that embedded photo metadata can boost your search engine ranking. However, while the practice of adding embedded metadata to increase findability and to protect the intellectual property of an image are both good ideas, there is a hitch to this concept from the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) perspective.

That is, while it is possible for automated search bots to be configured to read the embedded photo metadata embedded in digital images, there is no evidence to suggest that the search engines are currently doing this; nor is there any evidence that it will help with the SEO for your images or your website — at least not without some additional work. That doesn't mean that embedding metadata in your images is not a good practice. It's just at this point in time that it has little value for Search Engine Optimization (SEO).

Read more about what can be done to leverage your metadata work in the article "Why Embedded Photo Metadata Won't Help Your SEO."

Myths about photo metadata?

How savvy are you about photo metadata? There are a number of myths or misconceptions that surround the practice of embedding copyright, contact information, and other types of “metadata” into digital image files — like JPEGs, TIFFs, Photoshop, DNG and other Raw files.

Take a look at the list of the Top 12 myths about embedded photo metadata and see if you can tell which are fact and which are fiction.

Here are the top five:

1. Embedded photo metadata is something that is hard to read unless you have Photoshop or some other professional software application.
2. Embedding photo metadata adds a lot of disk space overhead to an image file.
3. Removing embedded photo metadata is against the law.
4. Images that I upload to my social media or photo sharing sites will still retain my embedded photo metadata.
5. Images that I upload to my social media or photo sharing sites will still retain my embedded photo metadata.

Read the other 7 statements in the list as well as all the detailed commentary on the Controlled Vocabulary website.

facebooks new photo sharing fails Photo Metadata testing

I heard on CNET's "Buzz out Loud" Podcast last week that Facebook had updated their photo sharing to accommodate "High Resolution" images.

You can now upload images up to 2048 pixels on the long dimension. Note that I said "upload" -- not view. Your facebook friends (or other viewers if the album is made public) can download these larger sized images, but the online viewing is limited to a version that has been resized to a maximum of 720 pixels wide. I had hoped that this integration of Divvyshot's technology might mean that facebook would finally stop their "stripping" of embedded photo metadata, but that apparently is something that facebook users will still have to lobby for if they expect to see a change.

I've made a facebook album page available for public viewing using the CV Social Media Testbed image, which was fully loaded with embedded metadata. The actual image (now sans metadata thanks to facebook) can be viewed at this link. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs316.ash2/59589_455012177944_532727944_5452967_4191590_n.jpg

As noted in the latest report on the "Survey regarding the Preservation of Photo Metadata by Social Media Websites" no metadata from the image is exposed on the facebook site. While there is an option on your facebook page to "Tag This Photo" the system does not pick up any of the embedded metadata tags such as those in the keyword field, like both flickr and Picasa Web Albums can do.

In addition, while the images that can be viewed online are now up to 720 pixels on the long dimension, they are still being "stripped" of all IPTC, XMP, and Exif metadata (ICC profile information is retained). The option for others to download a 'high resolution" version, only prompts a download (you can not view the image online). I downloaded this larger version and tested as well. The only difference between the "high resolution" version and the online 720 pixel wide version, was the resolution -- both are stripped of any information beyond the pixels and the ICC profile. Since all descriptive photo metadata is missing, this would mean that even the "original" is being modified before it is stored on their system -- and potential orphan works are being created, each time you upload an image to facebook.

For those that are concerned about retaining their intellectual properly, facebook receives a failing grade in our book. For now, our recommendation is to stick with Flickr or Picasa Web Gallery.

Photo Metadata Utility Developer Gets "The Big Picture"

The SuperUtils company is one of the first software developers to spell out both pro and con arguments for the removal of embedded photo metadata. It is nice to see developers moving in this direction, as too many are intent to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) regarding "privacy" in terms of the information that may be divulged in the metadata of a digital image. It would be great if more developers took a similar approach.

Until we have tools that allow for the selective removal of metadata, the prudent approach would be to preserve all the information that is present in the image. If metadata is to be removed; then, at minimum, the person processing, saving, or uploading the image should be warned that this removal is about to happen and/or be informed about the consequences of their actions.