Show HN: I made a site to catalogue 10,000 CC0-licensed stock photos

Post by mattl » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #53

ghaff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the challenges I have with attribution generally--and, to be clear, I try to be very careful with attribution on any CC, etc. photos that I use--is that the attribution is usually detached from the photo. (It may be stored in the metadata--or not.) So, even though I make a point of cutting & pasting the flickr links when I'm putting together a presentation, it's very easy for the attribution text and the photo…

There are fields within the JPEG file itself for this information, called IPTC fields. I know they can be read with photo-specific software like Photo Mechanic or Photoshop, but they seem incredibly under-used by the Internet in general. They're perfect for a use case like persistent attribution, but few image software services seem to know about or expose them.

Post by oliwarner » Sun, Jan 24, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

davidbarker wrote: post #42

oliwarner wrote: post #37

I like to think I am very conscious of copyright. I might not always adhere to it in my person life (who can claim they do these days?!) but professionally, everything is done strictly legitimately. With that in mind... Am I the only person who is slightly uncomfortable with the phrasing around PD and CC0? With other copyright licenses there is somebody there is saying they own something. I'm particularly uncomfortab…

If you look underneath each photo, there's a link back to each original page, as well as a link to the photographer's URL of choice (depending on the source this might be their profile on Unsplash, or their own website).

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #57

snowwrestler wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are fields within the JPEG file itself for this information, called IPTC fields. I know they can be read with photo-specific software like Photo Mechanic or Photoshop, but they seem incredibly under-used by the Internet in general. They're perfect for a use case like persistent attribution, but few image software services seem to know about or expose them.

I agree these are under-used but they face the same issues as the other methods like putting the data in text near the image on a web page or presentation slide. These fields, same as all Exif metadata, can be overwritten or removed by anyone with access to the file. The data can be faked by someone intending to deceive, or it could disappear when posted to big sites like Facebook or Twitter who routinely remove Exif…