Pub Photography - A Risky Business?

[NickDavies]

I doubt any photo even taken from exactly the same spot could ever be the same, different weather, light conditions, extraneous matter like seasons, cars, passers by etc would affect this, as well as the sheer unlikeliness of someone taking the shot from the precise location at the same zoom/exposure conditions. Any claim like that if not genuine would easily be booted out surely?

I walk by the Albert Hall every morning. It must be the first sightseeing stop for the tourist coaches from the many local hotels. They all get off and queue to take a picture of the hall from one direction and and the memorial from the other. Then they get back on to get to Buckingham Palace in time for the changing of the guard. Of course this goes on at every tourist trap in the world.* Given that most of those pictures will be taken on a few different makes of compact digital camera - lots of models therein but the same software - all set to landscape/auto exposure/auto focus the chances of two people getting a near identical shot, even down to file length, are probably shorter than we might think.

However they'll never get the file's creation time the same however hard they try - and I would have thought anyone investigating this sort of plagiarism would start from there rather than trying to subjectively compare the images. Someone unable to provide the original file that came off the camera would not be making things easy for themselves.

* I must admit in this context I can't imagine a queue of people waiting to photograph, say, Edwards of Colchester.

[Conrad]

However they'll never get the file's creation time the same however hard they try - and I would have thought anyone investigating this sort of plagiarism would start from there rather than trying to subjectively compare the images. Someone unable to provide the original file that came off the camera would not be making things easy for themselves.

I feel a desperate urge to reply to this. My reply is an academic answer however and has no bearing on any case.

We do check this instantly and it is fantastic supporting evidence that allows us to make a quick determination. It is however easy to forge as it is effectively just text that you can replace with no changes to the image, so if you are presented with 2 identical images with different exif (the embedded text) messages then I know of no way of determining which is the original image assuming that the exif makes sense.

[NickDavies]

I feel a desperate urge to reply to this. My reply is an academic answer however and has no bearing on any case.

We do check this instantly and it is fantastic supporting evidence that allows us to make a quick determination. It is however easy to forge as it is effectively just text that you can replace with no changes to the image, so if you are presented with 2 identical images with different exif (the embedded text) messages then I know of no way of determining which is the original image assuming that the exif makes sense.

That didn't come out quite right and I didn't mean to imply that you were't doing it right - no I quite agree by the time something has got on a website any data about it is not conclusive. But if lawyers become involved the question would revolve around the original file that came off the camera, which would be rather more difficult to steal.

[Conrad]

That didn't come out quite right and I didn't mean to imply that you were't doing it right - no I quite agree by the time something has got on a website any data about it is not conclusive. But if lawyers become involved the question would revolve around the original file that came off the camera, which would be rather more difficult to steal.

Don't worry I assumed you weren't getting at us, but in general I felt I should explain what we did.

With regards to lawyers, I was always taught that once they are involved everyone loses except the lawyers, and never rely on a court to make the right decision. So sadly you have to listen to the wildest accusations, but even with that in mind, it is a rare case that isn't obvious when you have the 2 images in front of you and normally the embedded information is enough.

[Evil Gazebo]

Never mind all this talk of Exif and lawyers. This thread needs to get back to its key topic, ie Wild Rover’s tale of Huddersfield exhibitionism, and the subsequent lack of pictorial evidence.

[Conrad]

Never mind all this talk of Exif and lawyers. This thread needs to get back to its key topic, ie Wild Rover’s tale of Huddersfield exhibitionism, and the subsequent lack of pictorial evidence.

I'm afraid that may well bring us back to the talk of lawyers fairly quickly

[NickDavies]

Never mind all this talk of Exif and lawyers. This thread needs to get back to its key topic, ie Wild Rover’s tale of Huddersfield exhibitionism, and the subsequent lack of pictorial evidence.

Talk of Huddersfield reminds me of this little poem:

In 'uddersfield, in 'uddersfield,
there were a cow as wouldn't yield.
The reason why she wouldn't yield?
She didn't like 'er udders feeled!

[Quinno]

Quinno... Did the misses know you were actually taking a picture of the Ship or was it a case of "just a bit to the left love, there's a bit of glare from the sun"?

That's my sister!

She fancied being on the internet via her infamous older brother...

[Conrad]

Unfortunate conspiracy of posts there, a lovely limerick from Nick, followed by a post from Quinno with the first line "That's my sister!"

[Andy Ven]

Talk of Huddersfield reminds me of this little poem:

In 'uddersfield, in 'uddersfield,
there were a cow as wouldn't yield.
The reason why she wouldn't yield?
She didn't like 'er udders feeled!

"She were a right rum Yorkshire lass...but she liked her udders feeled" - that was the Macc Lads wasn't it!?