Incense

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

17

I did some investigation on my own, using my own flickr account and a non-logged in browser. Here's the All Sizes page for one of my photos. Prior to me changing the "Who can access your original image files?" setting in Privacy & Permissions, a generic Internet user could see the "Original" link in addition to the other sizes. That page had an ...


8

I'm answering the more general question about EXIF data, rather than the specific question about the lens serial number. It probably depends on how paranoid you are, and how much you have to hide (for example if you have a security clearance or are committing activities that might be illegal (or could become illegal in the future) or violate social norms, ...


7

Imagemagick supports Unix, Mac OS X, Windows... You can delete EXIF info using mogrify: mogrify -strip *.jpg


6

As written, this is borderline off-topic. But the answer could apply to photography as well, for example, if taking pictures in a war zone where recognizable faces could be dangerous for the subject. To answer it, we have to look at two things. First, the way the information is stored in an image file. Generally, each pixel is simply represented by triplet ...


5

nconvert is a fantastic tool to convert and manipulate images. It is available for a huge number of platforms in cluding Mac OS X and some plaforms I thought were long gone :) To wipe all metadata you have to use the rmeta option, as in: nconvert -rmeta DSCN0001.JPG There is a small catch with all such operations depending on your camera. When you take ...


5

If you're going to 'show them to the world' - you need to ask. That's common courtesy and, more importantly, you may not be ingrained in their lives enough to know if there's a serious reason to not want them up and public. (For example, I have a friend who went through a messy adoption and posting pictures of his kids on Facebook could complicate his ...


5

How you feel about things is an utterly subjective thing, depending on (among other things) what was your intent when taking/publishing the photo and the context where the image is used. For example, you might feel robbed when you worked hard hoping to earn money for a photo and then discover it somewhere used or even shared without your consent. Or you ...


4

If you maintain multiple not obviously connected accounts (Flickr or otherwise) and wish to keep those accounts independent of each other - for whatever reason - then this is a potential weakness. If the same serial numbers are displayed, then those serial numbers could be used as a way to connect those accounts (Flickr to Flicker, or perhaps Flicker to ...


3

What I do on Flickr, which I think works reasonably well: All photos featuring a child are "friends and family" (my children), "family only" (other children in my extended family) or completely private (other people's children). This means that if people do have accounts on Flickr, they get access to the appropriate photos without having to jump through ...


3

There isn't a right or wrong answer here unless your local jurisdiction has laws about it. As long as you are reasonable about what you put online, I don't expect there to be any problems as long as the parents aren't complaining about it. Use your judgement and share the photos you spend time and effort to produce. That said, if they were friend's kids ...


3

Flickr uses non-secure web protocol (HTTP) by default, so any images can be accessed after performing session hijacking from a person who can access them. For session hijacking, the attacker needs to be able to eavesdrop on victim's network traffic, e.g. by accessing same wireless access point or some intermediate network node. The risk has become quite ...


3

This page (linked to from the Firefox plugin that bill weaver posted) does a good job of summarising the situation, including the "random component" in the image URL that I mentioned in the question. The author notes: This means that even if you go to the trouble of getting the file name for one of the smaller sizes, you cannot guess the file name of ...


2

If it's displayed, of course you can save it. If originals are protected, then not unless the URL is known. Bottom line is pretty secure and no i don't think it can be downloaded. The flickr-original firefox plugin seems at first to do this (i passively assumed so), but actually downloads the large size if you've protected your originals from public ...


2

These are three separate questions, which you should probably ask separately. However I think they've all been handled before. I think these three cover your questions: Can I publish photos taken in public legally? Is a model release needed for all commercial photo sales? How do I copyright my photographs? Basically, you can post or sell pictures (as ...


2

For a situation like this you are better off consulting a legal expert in your area than relying on advise from the Internet. Where I am there is not a lot of recourse. You were on private property and there is an implied consent. I would start first by contacting the company and asking them to remove the picture. Starting the conversation by trying to ...


2

I share via Google Drive or Dropbox with family. There are two options you should consider: (1) Share via Link - This allows anyone with the link to view the photos, but the link is not "public" and, therefore, users without the link won't be able to see the photos and they won't show up in search engine results. I tend to use this option for photos of ...


2

It's not generally illegal to take photos of people in public and then post them on an ad supported website. Just as it's not illegal for those people to sue the living daylights out of you for using their likeness to promote goods or services that they find offensive. There are plenty of laws that can apply that are very fair in that regard - libel, ...


1

It depends on the local law, that differs among countries. For example, in my country - Poland, it is legally allowed to take and publish photo containing a person as long as the photo is not a portrait-like - the person on the photo is not the main subject of it. But still there are few exceptions from this rule.


1

You won't be able to recover the covered parts of the image but maybe you could find a previous version. If you are using windows you can right click the containing folder and click previous versions. You may find a version in there depending on when your shadow copy runs and how long you left it before editing the image.


1

Facebook are reasonably responsive to privacy issues which have the potential to cause them legal woes. If you complain to Facebook with a statement that the photo is of you and that it is being used in a manner that you did not authorise and that it was NOT taken in a public place then they will almost certainly remove it. If you contact the original ...


1

As I understand it (as a photographer, not a lawyer), if the photographer has the permission of the landowner to take a photo, they can; However, I would ave thought that under data protection legislation, your personally identifiable information can only be used for the purpose that was disclosed at the time (and this is why photographers liek models to ...


1

If you're concerned, this is a great command-line tool for stripping EXIF data en masse: http://www.yafla.com/papers/purejpeg/filter_unnecessary_jpeg_info_such_as_exif.htm I strip EXIF data from my jpegs not because I'm concerned about security, but because the EXIF is a big chunk of the overall file size. My pictures display faster on my site when ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible