re: Copyright permissions

[bfs]

What does this line mean...
Profile Copyright:    Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company

I also see a lot of copyright references to Photoshop, Adobe, Hewlett-Packard... they seem generic enough BUT are listed under "copyright" or "rights" so I'd like to know with all certainty whether or not I'm able to still use images that show these references.

Thanks in advance...

[Phil Harvey]

Good question.

The ProfileCopyright is for the embedded ICC color profile.  My guess is that you are free to distribute this profile as part of the image, but I'm no lawyer.

- Phil

[bfs]

Thanks, Phil. 

We're actually in the process of cleaning up ALL of our website images after being hit with a "copyright infringement" letter. We're using ExifTool to identify copyright-protected images. I'm seeing a LOT of '(C) Adobe / Hewlett-Packard / Kodak' references and find it odd that they would be connected with authorship rights (but what do I know).  This sounds more like soft/hardware recognition of some sort.

(Most of our images were collected from Google images and I've never given it a second thought about what *rights* an image had OR how to go about finding out.  Naive, I know now!!)

If "profile copyright" is simply a reference to ICC color profile, I'm thinking that it has nothing to do with authorship, copyright, or rights... right?  And that these images would be ok to keep..?  Maybe..?  Anyone..?   We have a LOT of these images to replace if they're rights-related and of course, my new fear is doing this before receiving another letter!

If someone else could confirm what this label means, we would be genuinely grateful. My thinking is, as long as there is no "copyright" reference, the images would be ok to keep??....?

[Phil Harvey]

If you want, you can always delete the colour profile:

exiftool -icc_profile= FILE

The image colours may change a bit though.

Regarding not copyrighted if no copyright notice.  I don't believe this is true.  In some countries I believe the copyright is implied.  But I'm no lawyer.

- Phil

[bfs]

I don't think we care about all the other metadata; we're just concerned about stepping on copyright-protected toes (but thanks for the howto for removing the line)

Copyright protection is a whole new realm for us now -- and that would be a *real bummer* if we had to replace ALL our images with unspecified rights because copyright is implied!..  Definitely have to look into that one while we re-think our use of images on our site!!

Thanks again for replying, Phil.
(And thanks for creating ExifTool -- we find the drag-n-drop feature very easy to use! )

[Alan Clifford]

and that would be a *real bummer* if we had to replace ALL our images with unspecified rights because copyright is implied!

"Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work", taken from http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

[Alan Clifford]

There has been some worry about "Orphaned works" legislation here in the UK but "the Government states: 'With regard to the removal of data about the ownership of copyrighted work (metadata), it is already a civil infringement under UK copyright law to knowingly and without authority strip metadata from a copyrighted work."  See http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539823/photographers-copyright-fears-spark-government-response

[bfs]

@Alan - I agree about removing metadata related to copyright info. It's basically an act of premeditated guilt.  I'm thinking however, that Phil's advice about removing the "profile copyright" was strictly related to the color profile.

Remember, my OP was just seeking clarification on whether "profile copyright" had any association with "copyright" rights.  Since this is still unclear to me (although I suspect now that it actually doesn't), we've removed EVERY image that has ANY reference to ANY "copyright" label just to be safe. 

It would be nice to know for future reference though, if "profile copyright" was in any way connected with authorship rights.

Anyone?...

[Phil Harvey]

I'm thinking however, that Phil's advice about removing the "profile copyright" was strictly related to the color profile.

I didn't suggest removing the ProfileCopyright alone.  (In fact, ExifTool can not do this.)  I meant to remove the complete profile, which includes its copyright.  If there is no color profile then the ProfileCopyright doesn't apply.  This is very different from the copyright for the image itself.

- Phil

[bfs]

Ahh....

Are you saying that you can remove ALL the image metadata?  Wouldn't that be kinda, um... bad?

[Phil Harvey]

I'm saying you can remove the color profile.  Not the other metadata.  If no colour profile exists, then the default (probably sRGB) color profile is used.

- Phil

Note:  I have been assuming we are talking about JPEG images here, where the ICC profile is well isolated from the other metadata.

[bfs]

Ahh.... I get it.

Clearly, this is foreign to me (I think Alan's reply threw me off).  Luckily, I'm not interested in mucking about with any of the metadata labels.  Just trying to pull our head out of the sand and keep compliant with jpgs/pngs/ etc)

Thanks for all the info; I learned something new

[bfs]

Update to OP:

It took a couple of days but we ran ALL of our images through the Exiftool and confirmed whether there were copyright associations with any of the images on our site.  We ended up trashing or replacing a few but for the most part, the bulk of our images looked clean.

However, we received another letter yesterday from a second image warehouse claiming compensation for 2 more images.  One was removed when we did our audit and didn't even show up in Google's SERP cache; the other was run through Exiftool and showed nothing. I was also able to do a reverse image search to find the image associated with a CC license AND a wallpaper site that actually has a copyright policy and claims that all of their images have been obtained legally and are cooperative with removing any that aren't -- suggesting to me that they are free to publish the image and offer it for download.

My question...

By chance, are there any kind of residual markers left over in the event that copyright metadata has been erased ...that an image warehouse can still access and use to identify an image as being exclusively "their" image?  I'd really like to know this.  Because if that is the case, I guess we can't rely on running future images through Exiftool.  And if that's the case, I guess we look at hooking up with an image warehouse (that doesn't practice trolling!).

I ask because I genuinely thought this image was clean. I don't know if it's helpful to see it associated with 2 other sites claiming ownership, or not...

How is a person supposed to know what is "clean" or not, especially after trying to make sure it is?!??...

[Phil Harvey]

By chance, are there any kind of residual markers left over in the event that copyright metadata has been erased ...that an image warehouse can still access and use to identify an image as being exclusively "their" image? 

Absolutely, yes.  The image itself (using an image search engine).  Also, invisible watermarks may be placed in the image (but this would require a dedicated search engine, however I wouldn't be surprised if some commercial image marking utilities provided this service).

- Phil

[bfs]

When you say, "yes," do you mean other metadata?  ...that Exiftool doesn't pick up?

When you talk about "the image itself," do you mean literally, the visible image? (I know, I feel dumb asking that)  ...'cause that just seems obvious.

When you say, "invisible watermarks," well... this is new to me.  Do you mean a 'digital' watermark or something else?

In any case.... it looks like my only two options are to swear off images or look for a respectable image broker. Clearly, the odds of my getting into trouble from using Google images are pretty darn high!! (I'm beginning to feel sick)

I have to ask...

1) WHY is there even an image search engine if there is such a HIGH possibility that the majority of images are copyright protected and UNUSABLE?   Is it there just "for fun?!"

2) HOW are honest people supposed to know when an image (without a visible watermark) IS copyright protected and free to use?