• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Which does not solve that at all

    Because the vast majority of “paparazzi” and controversy pictures aren’t taken by Jake Gyllenhal. They are taken by randos on the street with phones who when sell their picture to TMZ or whatever.

    And they aren’t going to be paying for an expensive leica camera. And samsung and apple aren’t going to be licensing that tech.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        People can write whatever they want

        5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, and 5.6 all require basically universal adoption for this to at all be useful. And 5.4 and 5.7 (as well as many of the rest) already fall apart once you realize this is metadata that people have to opt in to keeping. 5.4 in particular feels like it is prone to breaking if there are edits in a video for flow or to remove sensitive information.

        Much like “The Blockchain” and NFTs, this sort of touches on an issue but is a horrendously bad and pointless implementation.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t quite get why some of those cases require universal adoption. News photos: You just need one big news company to say “we’re giving all our photographers a camera with this tech” and then it serves its purpose.

          You see a headline “SHOCKING photo published by MegaNewsCorp will send you into a coma!” then you can validate that it came from a MegaNewsCorp photographer. If you trust MegaNewsCorp, then the tech has done its job. If you didn’t trust MegaNewsCorp already, then this tech changes nothing. I think there is moderate value in that, overall.

          The story of this tech is getting picked up and thrown around by bad tech journalism, being game-of-telephone’d into some kind of game changer.

          Plenty of open standard live and die by whether or not one big player decides to adopt them.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            … I literally just explained that a lot of those photos are crowd sourced. Which gets back to needing more or less universal adoption. And even then: Maybe I’ll give CNN a picture of a republican beating a child if I can strip the metadata. I am not giving that if it is going to trace back to me.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              So then news orgs who care about provenance have to stop copying social media posts and treating them like well-researched journalism. Seems like a win to me.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  41 year ago

                  You gave an example of TMZ sourcing photos from randos, but they’re likely not the target customer for this tech. If they cared about integrity they wouldn’t be reporting celebrity gossip.

                  For news companies posting syndicated images, then those come from a cadre of photographers who are most likely to own the newest most expensive cameras. Surely it’s not inconceivable that as this tech rolls out more, Agence-France-Presse, Getty, or AP could require all photos submitted to them to have this metadata, thus passing the benefits along to any news agency using their images.

                  If you’re talking about photo sources taken from everyday people, then yes: They won’t have this technology in the short term, maybe not ever. Then again, I don’t get my news from TMZ.

                  I think blockchain is dumb because it fails to achieve its stated goals while also harming society. I think this is a system with marginal use case and minimal licensing overhead to integrate into future cameras, so overall my take is “not dumb” and “probably useful”.