They could make it virtually impossible to hack, some kind of database failure could be a problem though.  So yes, it is preferable to leave the metadata intact.

I agree, but that does not mean that a (facebook) warning against illegal use of (Google Drive) images is not useful ?    Any argument against posting on facebook?  It even contains a hint in the direction of non-istock agencies.

Stripping the metadata is not OK, period.

Even if this wonderful fingerprint is 100% perfect and flawless, by stripping the copyright data they are enticing people to think that there is no copyright on them and therefore they are free, which will only encourage copyright theft and redistribution.

What's more, your personal connection with your work is severed. The only contact point for any image becomes Getty, because no photographers have a name any longer. There'll never even be the possibility of a credit saying: "Image: Baldrick/iStock" because the photographer's identity will be concealed, depriving you of your reputation.

Only yesterday I had someone on FAA trying to tell me that you can't object to a blogger taking your work if they find it in a google search, because you can't say to them "well, the other 4,999 pictures in that search were free but mine happens not to be". It's not fair to people who are "picking up stuff people have left lying around".  If nothing even has copyright restrictions put in it any longer, because people selling it take the information away, even more people will think like that.

Let me post again that "fingerprinting" is a _reactive_ system, not a _proactive_ system.  They are not adding anything to the image to make it any more trackable than any other system.  Their algorithm for matching images may be different or better, but it is not some secret code inserted in the jpeg.

From https://support.photoshelter.com/entries/21604911-picscout:
"In order for PicScout to fingerprint your images, PhotoShelter securely sends a low-resolution copy of the image to them. Then PicScout fingerprints your images using an advanced image recognition algorithm that identifies unique patterns within the image. Unlike a watermark, this image fingerprint is derived from the image and therefore cannot be erased, modified, or edited. The current ImageExchange technology allows PicScout to identify images in a near-exact match as they appear on the Internet.

Each image fingerprint is associated with its unique metadata, which we send along with the image. At present, this metadata includes image owner, license type, and image URL. The image is not altered by PicScout in any way."

"Fingerprinting" just makes it sound supercool and mysterious.

As mentioned above, as well, the world does not revolve around online usage.  Giving away our work in order to try and snatch a few crumbs would be unacceptable, and illegal, IMO, and makes no sense.

More:
"Proprietary ImageTracker methodology identifies image content based on digital fingerprints derived from algorithmic-based characteristics of the content. The highly accurate approach is independent of metadata, watermarks or file hashes and not affected by alterations that may have occurred in applications of an image. "

http://www.picscout.com/products-services/imageexchange-pricing.html
"The images you have uploaded into the ImageIRC are identified by ImageExchange as they appear online and are then displayed in the ImageExchange side panel. This area contains a thumbnail of the image and creator information. When users click on an image in the side panel, the ImageExchange licensing window opens. The licensing window provides a direct link to the image asset page on your site where users can quickly and easily license your image. ImageExchange can deliver highly-qualified leads directly to your site for fast and easy licensing."

Nothing about uploading and then re-downloading, then distributing.

And this works ad exclusive images only? How would it make difference with indie image bought from some other place and one stolen from G sources?

80 million images that are not only in Getty's database, but are also sold by SS, FT, DST etc  Guess which "metadata" will appear when you match your image using this technology :  the name of the copyright holder (you) and Getty.  Not SS, FT, DST etc!  So guess who's going to send the bill?  And I'm being nice now, I said BILL, not extortion letter.

Those are some of the issues, and there's no information yet about how they'll be resolved.  Need to watch this; it could go both ways.

Regards

Let me post again that "fingerprinting" is a _reactive_ system, not a _proactive_ system.  They are not adding anything to the image to make it any more trackable than any other system.  Their algorithm for matching images may be different or better, but it is not some secret code inserted in the jpeg.

From https://support.photoshelter.com/entries/21604911-picscout:
"In order for PicScout to fingerprint your images, PhotoShelter securely sends a low-resolution copy of the image to them. Then PicScout fingerprints your images using an advanced image recognition algorithm that identifies unique patterns within the image. Unlike a watermark, this image fingerprint is derived from the image and therefore cannot be erased, modified, or edited. The current ImageExchange technology allows PicScout to identify images in a near-exact match as they appear on the Internet.

Each image fingerprint is associated with its unique metadata, which we send along with the image. At present, this metadata includes image owner, license type, and image URL. The image is not altered by PicScout in any way."

"Fingerprinting" just makes it sound supercool and mysterious.

As mentioned above, as well, the world does not revolve around online usage.  Giving away our work in order to try and snatch a few crumbs would be unacceptable, and illegal, IMO, and makes no sense.

I found the same material on PS; because we have a web site there I asked them late last week about the T's and C's under which PicScout fingerprints images.  I was told that all fingerprinting was suspended shortly after Getty bought PicScout (there's a certain amount of tension between PS and G).

The reply from PS indicated that PicScout had been fingerprinting images that were both publicly visible AND priced.  Images that did not meet both criteria were, apparently, not fingerprinted.

Regards

This was posted in the English main forum. i hope Michael doesn�t mind if I repost it here (also in case it gets deleted)

I am really grateful how Lobo is allowing the threads to continue.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350403&messageid=6825629

"MichaelUtech

Posted 23 hours ago
Quote


I just loaded the new weekly statistics today (usually I make an update once every week, more often makes no sense since iStock often had problems publishing the stats themselves). Looks like not much has changed. No exclusive exodus yet (2 diamonds and 5 gold members returned their crown so far in January, only one gold member became exclusive), however it takes 30 days until the status change becomes visible so we might see a few more. Downloads still as low as the whole final quarter of last year, absolutely no upswing visible.


A little more interesting - About 140 members deleted 7300 files the last week (week before was 4600, already much more than usual). In addition upload numbers are about 30% lower than between summer and Christmas. These 7300 are more than what gets uploaded on a regular day. Let's see what happens when the Feb 2nd plans of a group of contributors become reality here...


Since I will be in Kenya from the end of this week until end of February this will be the last update for some time  Maybe it is good to get some distance to the chaos here and afterwards I can decide for myself if I will keep the crown."

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53

Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

Well it is bizarre, but not that unbelievable. Copyright trolling is a popular business these days, and Getty has been involved in it for a number of years - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images, "Controversial practices to enforce copyright". The idea is to bully people into paying up, they almost never go to court. I heard it's quite lucrative, since many people prefer to pay them some money rather than going to a lawyer and incur legal expenses.
It's hard to say if Getty is planning to that with Google images, we still know pretty much nothing about the deal. But it's one or part of the possibilities.

how do you find out if one of your images in the Google free image bank?
thanks

http://kga.me/gds
and search on your name

I don't know if I've missed an answer to this, but I'm still puzzled why the kga.me site can identify the copyright holders but people are still saying that the EXIF data has been stripped when they download the images. Can anyone explain at what stage of the process the copyright info disappears? Is Google doing it, or Getty?

Getty Images supplies Google with meta data imbedded in the images. Google deletes the meta data when a user imports a thumbnail into their document.