Last modified: 2006-06-16 11:43:01 UTC
metadata for many images is likely to be inaccurate (since users may take the
picture and upload it without ever knowing about the metadata), users should be
warned of this.
Some cameras are apparently inserting comments into the exif along the lines of
"copyright (c) Camera User" which for things like a photo of something like a
tree liscenced under the GFDL is not much of an issue. But when the photo is of
something that might be copyright (e.g. a logo) or the photographer puts their
photo into public domain the metadata will contradict the licencs. Particularly
this might cause problems for downstream users. ~~~~
My RICOH Caplio G4 adds such a comment that RICOH is copyrightholder. My camera
does not have a menuoption to change this. Perhaps there could be created a way
to overwrite these metadata on upload?
Or a reference to an easy to use freeware tool to change this?
(The village pump gave a reference to a perl script, but I'm not sure I will be
able to get this running).
This is not a minor problem: image pages are source of image copyright and
licence information, and it is highly disturbing that it is shown that the image
is copyright whatever camera company. Metadata should have a comment somehow
explaining this (but who it should be phrased is beyond me :-( ).
Such a warning can now be added and formulated, just as you like,
to the recently created message [[MediaWiki:Metadata-help]],
thanks to Brion.
*** Bug 6229 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I don't agree with the requests of bug 6229. EXIF information says about the
photo, and if the photography was taken from a book, then that is of interest too.
However, I would like to request that the EXIF works for category requests. It
was tried to add a category to the EXIF data, but the category was not appended
to the image itself and thus not added into the category.
IMO it would be splendid if images could be categorized in this way. It would
allow users to compare images from various camera models, as well as finding all
images originally created by oneself. Don't you agree?
I have no idea what comment 6 means; it does not clearly relate to the
bug and the summary has been overwritten without explanation.
Restored bug summary. f you have some different issue, please open
a new issue for it.