Skip navigation
Troy House
Troy House
Currently Being Moderated

Save for web and copyright

Sep 29, 2008 5:31 PM

Dear Adobe,
This is a very serious plea to add copyright info when using the "save for web" feature. Save for Web is one of Photoshops most valuable features but without the ability to at least save copyright info many of us can not use this. Is there a reason I am missing? After what has transpired in the last 24 hours with the Orphaned Works bill, this has become 100 times more important.
Thanks
Troy

PS Photographers, please add your feelings below and write adobe if you agree.
2126 Views   32 Replies   Latest reply: DavidCableOrg, Feb 8, 2011 7:50 AM
 
Replies
  • NotInUse
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. NotInUse,
    Sep 29, 2008 5:34 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    So, you want some arbitrary data added to every image? Why not just add a copyright notice yourself before saving for web?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Ann Shelbourne
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. Ann Shelbourne,
    Sep 29, 2008 6:05 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    If the copyright notice has been appended to the metadata, you can include it in every image by checking the appropriate box in the SFW dialog.

    If you include your images in a Flash-driven Adobe Web gallery, it makes it harder (but not impossible) for people to grab them illicitly.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    3. (Lonna_Tucker),
    Sep 29, 2008 6:17 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Ann is right, click the tiny arrow Troy (you really have to go in search of this on the Save for web preset pane) to reveal "include XMP". Pretty crude offering if you ask me. If Orphan Works passes, visual artists will need some kind of technology that embeds copyright and other XMP info into the image permanently. I have bitched about this for years...
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Ann Shelbourne
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Ann Shelbourne,
    Sep 29, 2008 6:23 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Lonna:

    Metadata in SFW is much easier to manage in CS4.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Troy House
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. Troy House,
    Sep 29, 2008 7:14 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Lonna and others,
    Thank you. That is absurd that is buried so far down but at least it is there. Thank you
    Troy
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    6. (Cameron_Davidson),
    Sep 30, 2008 1:56 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Please make it easier to save your data to images that are saved for web. I am asking that Adobe make the default setting so that copyright information and contact information is included with the file.

    With Orphan Works passing the Senate and possibly becoming law, it is critical for Adobe to change how images are saved to websites.

    Thank you.

    Cameron
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Wade S Zimmerman
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Wade S Zimmerman,
    Sep 30, 2008 2:26 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Selecting those images in the bridge and adding the xmp to all of them is not practical for you?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    8. Jim or Marion Jordan,
    Sep 30, 2008 3:24 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    It seems that a few people here are misunderstanding the audience of this forum. Make your feature requests directly to Adobe. This user to user forum is not the place to make feature requests.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    9. (Cameron_Davidson),
    Sep 30, 2008 4:24 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Jim

    Do you have a link to where one can make a request to Adobe? That would be helpful.

    Wade,

    Not everyone embraces or uses "Bridge." I don't. This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed by Adobe. Any image that was "saved for web" with the metadata stripped (by Photoshop, I might add) is open territory for someone to use the image under the new "Orphan Works" rules. (If they pass). Any user can "claim" that they had no way to find the creator of the image since their is no metadata attached to the image. Yes, Bridge is one way to do this, but it is another step in the process and why must Adobe by default, strip the data?

    Thank you.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    10. Jim or Marion Jordan,
    Sep 30, 2008 4:31 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    At the bottom of every Adobe web page is a 'contact us' link. Click that, then choose the feedback tab.

    >why must Adobe by default, strip the data?

    Because extra meta data is typically pointless for web images, which are best kept at the smallest possible file size. Why would the images on this Adobe forums web page require copyright meta data or even an ICC profile? The majority of images on a web page are typically throw-away design elements that no one would want to loot. Those making web galleries with valued and protection-worthy content are a minority of those producing web imagery - - so this is probably why you are not seeing the default setting you'd want. But a feature request certainly seems in order.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Neil_Keller
    Currently Being Moderated
    11. Neil_Keller,
    Sep 30, 2008 4:36 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Cameron,
    >why must Adobe by default, strip the data?

    While I understand you concern, Save for Web... attempts to make file "weight" as low as possible -- specifically to optimize images for the Web. Adding any metadata would defeat that.

    But, sure, no reason why it can't be an option for saving files. Let Adobe know.

    Neil
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Wade S Zimmerman
    Currently Being Moderated
    12. Wade S Zimmerman,
    Sep 30, 2008 5:36 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    >Not everyone embraces or uses "Bridge." I don't.

    I feel for you but you will have to learn to embrace the Bridge as it becomes more important to the working of the creative suites integration.

    No way around it. You'll see how much you like it in the future and how you will become to depend àon it.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    13. Jim or Marion Jordan,
    Sep 30, 2008 5:53 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    >Any user can "claim" that they had no way to find the creator of the image since their is no metadata attached to the image.

    There may also be a fundamental misunderstanding of protecting images on a web page here. There are very, very, very few people that will be looking at meta data in an image for copyright. And few applications will even reveal that meta data to the user.

    You can't stop someone from taking your image from your site and you can't track what they do with it. The best way that anyone can try to protect their copyright is to stamp a visible mark somewhere on the image that not only announces copyright but points the viewer to your site (ex: © 2008 Joe Photography - joephoto.com). So if someone steals your image and posts it elsewhere, other viewers will know where to find the source. The image thief may be your best marketer.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    14. (Lonna_Tucker),
    Sep 30, 2008 8:21 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Most of the problems I encounter are from clients use of my hi-res photography, whether intentional or otherwise. I'm looking for technology that embeds my copyright information permanently into the image when I create a hi-res file for delivery. A watermark is not the answer and neither is XMP as long as it can be stripped out, or in the case of a jpeg left out when a client creates a new jpeg. I have seen watermarks retouched out and and bylines cropped off especially when files are sent out for PR and editorial purposes.

    Why can't an authors copyright and contact info be embedded once to a photo and locked for security against deletion or changes by others?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    15. Jim or Marion Jordan,
    Sep 30, 2008 8:28 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    JPG, GIF, and PNG were never designed for DRM. No watermark or meta trick will change this.

    If you don't want hi-res photos loose, don't release them.

    If you need to demonstrate the hi-res quality of your art, consider zoomify, which chops your image into tiles and makes them less prone for theft.

    >seen watermarks retouched out and and bylines cropped off

    How do you retouch or crop a watermark that appears in the center of an image or over the subject?
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    16. (J_Maloney),
    Sep 30, 2008 8:38 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    https://www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/

    You can run the demo on your images in PS to see how it affects image quality.

    J
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Ann Shelbourne
    Currently Being Moderated
    17. Ann Shelbourne,
    Sep 30, 2008 10:25 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    >Not everyone embraces or uses "Bridge." I don't.>

    Cameron:

    I suggest that you will want to revise that opinion once you see the CS4 version of Bridge and Bridge-hosted ACR 5.x.

    The new version frankly knocks the socks off Lightroom and is a completely different animal from Bridge CS3!
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Ann Shelbourne
    Currently Being Moderated
    18. Ann Shelbourne,
    Sep 30, 2008 10:30 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    >How do you retouch or crop a watermark that appears in the center of an image or over the subject? >

    For someone who is determined to steal, and has reasonable retouching skills, it is not impossible. Also plastering a visible watermark right across an image does attract from its appeal if you are hoping to attract buyers.

    You could always register with Digimarc if you think that it is worth it.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Ann Shelbourne
    Currently Being Moderated
    19. Ann Shelbourne,
    Sep 30, 2008 11:20 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    I think John Nack must have known what Cameron was going to say this morning and therefore posted this especially for him:

    http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/

    [The NEW Bridge]
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Paul Riggott
    Currently Being Moderated
    20. Paul Riggott,
    Sep 30, 2008 11:55 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Getting back to the metadata, in PSCS4 SFW there are the following options.

    None.
    Copyright.
    Copyright and Contact Info.
    All Except Camera Info.
    All.

    Also if you use an existing script that does SFW and use it on PSCS4 the resultant file will retain IPTC information.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    21. (J_Maloney),
    Sep 30, 2008 12:15 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Any ideas how much data this ads? "(c) Jizzy 2008" adds over 14k to an image right now (CS3). Ouch.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Paul Riggott
    Currently Being Moderated
    22. Paul Riggott,
    Sep 30, 2008 12:35 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Adding copyright and "(c) Jizzy 2008", saving both with a quality of 100, optimized, added 3k
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    23. (J_Maloney),
    Sep 30, 2008 12:57 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    In CS4?

    Still, I just saved the first scene of "The Tempest" as a 3k text file. Maybe I'll go write my own "creative suite." ;)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Paul Riggott
    Currently Being Moderated
    24. Paul Riggott,
    Sep 30, 2008 12:59 PM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Yes CS4
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Anita Dennis
    64 posts
    Aug 11, 2002
    Currently Being Moderated
    25. Anita Dennis,
    Oct 1, 2008 9:13 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    In the Save for Web & Devices dialog in Photoshop CS4, you can opt to include copyright metadata on your JPGs, GIFs, and PNGs. See http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS29D0201B-A3E2-4339-9747- 8FB540762EE3.html.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Neil_Keller
    Currently Being Moderated
    26. Neil_Keller,
    Oct 1, 2008 9:59 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    Thanks, Anita, for taking the time to post.

    Neil
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    27. Buko.,
    Oct 1, 2008 10:17 AM   in reply to Troy House
    Report
    But you can still strip it off.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • DavidCableOrg
    Currently Being Moderated
    28. DavidCableOrg,
    Feb 7, 2011 7:49 AM   in reply to Anita Dennis
    Report

    I was hunting around to see if Photoshop would offer something similar to a steganography program (embed a copyright notice in a jpg) and came across this thread. I am curious to know about adding the metadata but the url Anita gave came up as a 404 page. Our online store wishes to add copyright information to all of our product images so that if someone blindly steals our work, we can get them.

     

    Thanks,

    David

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    29. Marian Driscoll,
    Feb 7, 2011 8:47 AM   in reply to DavidCableOrg
    Report

    DavidCableOrg wrote:

     

    ... we can get them.

     

    How do you really think that will happen?

     

    I almost want to re-type what someone already typed in post #13.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • PECourtejoie
    4,770 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    30. PECourtejoie,
    Feb 7, 2011 11:14 AM   in reply to Marian Driscoll
    Report

    TinEye comes to mind.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    31. Marian Driscoll,
    Feb 7, 2011 11:54 AM   in reply to PECourtejoie
    Report

    TinEye, Digimarc, etc all put the responsibility on you to go chase after your images online. There is still no protection. If all the resources of the US government can't touch wikileaks or online gambling sites, what makes us think an artist can effectively track down and prosecute someone for stealing something they failed to reasonably protect in the first place?

     

    These tools do nothing to help you if your image is duplicated offline.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • DavidCableOrg
    Currently Being Moderated
    32. DavidCableOrg,
    Feb 8, 2011 7:50 AM   in reply to Marian Driscoll
    Report

    As an online retailer, we don't plan on routinely checking sites everyday or throwing the book at every offender. We just want to be able to have that little extra protection when we find one of our competitors blatantly using an image of a product that we photographed and edited. I realize that a faint watermark is probably the best option, but finding a balance between the visibility of the watermark and product and still having a well detailed product image is not easy. We may just have to result in a sort of watermark, but something extra wouldn't hurt.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)