If I took a picture with a digital camera and then shared that picture online, all anonymously, could you figure out it was me that took the picture?
This question came up recently when someone who got an early copy of the new Harry Potter book — Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows — took a picture of every page and then posted those pictures to the web.
It turns out that digital cameras not only take photos. They also embed those digital images with metadata, information that you can’t see with the naked eye, but that you can read with a computer. The idea behind including other data in the photograph is that it can be useful. For example, imagine if photos had built-in geocoding (GPS) data that showed where exactly a photo was taken. With geocoding, your online photo album could list the location photos were taken automatically, and you could even connect to other people’s photos taken in the same location, for example. That would be pretty cool and you can expect it soon.
The person who took the pictures of the Harry Potter book probably didn’t realize that it left digital fingerprints behind. The information that digital cameras now capture is known as Exchangeable Image File Format (Exif) data. With some special reading software we know that the Harry Potter spoiler used a Canon Rebel 350. We know that camera was only sold in the US and Canada. And we actually know the serial number of that specific camera. So, if this person registered the camera online or took it in for service, their name is probably attached to the serial number in some database, easily accessible by the Canon and likely made available to the publisher of Harry Potter upon presentation of a subpoena.
Every image that is taken on a digital camera contains Exif data, which holds information about the picture such as zoom, contrast, focus and ‘distance to subject’ measurements. It is typically used for ‘trouble-shooting’, so an owner can ascertain why a picture may not have worked, but it also enables a court, for instance, to establish whether a picture has been digitally altered.
“The Exif data is like the picture’s DNA; you can’t switch it off. Every image has it. Some software can be used to strip or edit the information, but you can’t edit every field,”
Experimentation with meta data
Of course, digital cameras aren’t the only devices that may keep a record that could track a document back to its creator. We’ve extensively discussed how most color laser printers invisibly embed the printer serial number and date and time of printing on every page, in a pattern of tiny yellow dots. Although customers have been complaining, printer manufacturers have so far refused to let customers disable the tracking. (HP, for example, recently wrote to update one customer that it was wrong to say initially that it was unable to disable the tracking; instead, it now says it “will not” do so.)
Most computer users are unaware that CD burners in their PCs also contain a similar tracking mechanism that embeds a unique serial number, called a Recorder Identification Code, on every CD they burn.
Does it all smell of Big Brother? Or is this just the world we live in where data is everywhere all the time and we should just relax?
Keeping with my recent political theme… I saw on the site of Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidate, video he mashed up from the debate. I was thinking… can he do that? Is it Fair Use? Did he get permission or pay? MSNBC putout some crazy rules for their debate footage, saying it couldn’t be used on the internet basically. Yeah right. Joe Biden ignored them, and I would also because there is no way they are going after a presidential candidate with a cease and desist order.
When the presidential debates are aired by CNN on June 3rd and 5th, the public will be able to edit, remix, parody and publish the footage — without worrying about copyright violation. CNN has pledged to make debate footage available to the public “without restriction.” [Here's the link to CNN's press release on the subject.]
CNN’s decision comes on the heels of an open letter from a broad coalition of scholars, public advocates, and Internet entrepreneurs calling for the release of all debate footage under a Creative Commons license. Several major candidates have also joined the call.
This fight isn’t over yet, however. Not all future debates will be hosted by CNN. If MSNBC’s rules concerning re-use of footage of the May 3rd debate footage get picked up by other stations, some of the important discourse concerning the election of our next President will remain locked up by big media companies.
The legal concept of “fair use” is very important to our business and is an issue you really care about, even if you don’t know it. Fair use is a carve-out of copyright law that allows people to use copyrighted material for certain uses. Parody is a great example of fair use. For example, Saturday Night Live can do a skip making fun of American Idol without having to purchase rights to that show. And, for example, we used some Jimi Hendrix in this video for Amnesty International and we didn’t pay for it. (You can learn more about Fair Use from our friends at American University’s Center for Social Media.)
The issue of fair use is complicated because there is no one to go to that will tell you if your use qualifies. The only definitive way to know is if you are sued. The dynamic here is interesting because even big media companies don’t have a big interest in suing too often and for something that just might qualify. The reason is that they might lose and the bar for fair use might be set in a way they don’t want it.
MoveOn and Brave New Films did a parody of Stephen Colbert called “Stop the Falsiness.” Viacom, the owners of Comedy Central, issued a take-down notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the video disappeared from YouTube. MoveOn and Brave New Films, with the help of a great organization called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), sued Viacom because they said this is clearly a case of fair use. Viacom backed down and the video is back up. And in exchange for dropping the suit, Viacom agreed on all kinds of consessions. From the EFF press release:
… The lawsuit was filed in federal court last month, after a parody of “The Colbert Report” was removed from YouTube following a meritless copyright complaint by Viacom. The humorous video, called “Stop the Falsiness,” was created by MoveOn and BNF using clips from the Comedy Central television series. It was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on Colbert’s portrayal of the right-wing media and parodied MoveOn’s own reputation for earnest political activism.
Viacom initially denied sending the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice that resulted in the removal of the video from YouTube, while saying it had no objection to “Stop the Falsiness.” However, Viacom later conceded it was the source of the demand and admitted error in taking action against the parody.
In the course of discussions with EFF and FUP, Viacom described the steps it endorses for protecting fair use and free expression as it targets copyright infringement on Internet video sites. This includes: manual review of every video that is a potential DMCA takedown target, training reviewers to avoid issuing takedown requests for fair use, and publicly stating that it does not challenge use of Viacom materials that are “creative, newsworthy or transformative” and are “a limited excerpt for non commercial purposes.”
Furthermore, in reaction to the MoveOn/BNF suit, Viacom moved the ball forward for Internet users’ rights. In order to address any similarly erroneous takedown notices in the future, Viacom has agreed to set up a website and email “hotline,” promising a review of any complaint within one business day and a reinstatement if the takedown request was in error.
