Slate: Why are photos published without copyright metadata?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • (Edited)
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Slate & Voice are now supported here: https://adobespark.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/categories/202688167-Adobe-Spark

Why are photos published on Slate without even the minimum of copyright metadata embedded in the JPEGs?

In a browser I can right click a photo in a Slate presentation and save it to disc, which is already surprising. But when I examine the saved JPEG in Bridge etc, none of its metadata is present. It was all there when it had been uploaded to Lightroom, and in LrMobile I can share the photo and choose how much metadata to include in the shared file. But Slate doesn't even embed the copyright info.

Why can't the default treatment in all Adobe apps be to preserve at least our copyright info ? Doesn't Adobe care about our IP as much as it cares about its own?
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1204 Posts
  • 305 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Sasha

Sasha, Official Rep

  • 22 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thanks for the feedback John and sorry for any issues with metadata and imagery. Currently Slate doesn't process metadata/exif and the best method, although not ideal, is to use the caption fields for image credits and info. Sorry for any issues this may cause.

It's a great idea for a product feature and I will pass it along to our product teams. 

Thanks,
Sasha
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1204 Posts
  • 305 Reply Likes
I think the problem is upstream from Slate, Sasha. Slate is calling images from Adobe's servers, and it's probably the server that is stripping out all our metadata, including the copyright IPTC fields. So anyone can misuse our pictures, and they don't even need to go to the trouble of removing our copyright info.

By contrast, examine the EXIF/IPTC inside the JPEGs shared from Lightroom Web, https://lightroom.adobe.com/. These JPEGs contain what Lightroom calls "minimal" metadata - just the copyright.

Of course, if Slate got IPTC/EXIF data, you then have the opportunity to display it too, which would be nice.

But my concern is primarily about the potential for misuse and the lack of care over the customer's IP. If Lightroom calls copyright metadata "minimal", what should one call Slate's complete lack of metadata?
Photo of Sasha

Sasha, Official Rep

  • 22 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thank you for the feedback John, and very sorry again for any issues with Slate. I will communicate this with our product team and others within the larger org.

All the best,
Sasha
Photo of Lucinda Lewis

Lucinda Lewis

  • 16 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
If Adobe can correct this issue, it would be helpful if an explanation of why it happened is posted for the community-at-large to understand.

Stripped metadata or "not displayed" metadata is a widespread social media platform problem. If the issue is server related, a basic understanding of how and why could speed other social media services to correct the problem. Adobe could lead the way here with a transparent explanation.

If Adobe users choose to export IPTC metadata fields, the metadata should be displayed and respected across the Adobe platform and the web.

It would be nice if Adobe users could feel that at least Adobe respects and displays their arduously embedded metadata on their own platform. Perhaps users would make Adobe their publishing platform of choice if they had confidence in the metadata persistence.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.