-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=hXca
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hey Aaron!
On 1/21/25 07:55 PM, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
[snip]
> Some corrections on some of the stuff with image copyright:
>
> * There are two separate issues here, the issue of copyrighted images
> themselves, and the issue of copyrighted color profiles. The tl;dr:
> is that both are stored in the same file but are separate "entities"
> from a copyright perspective (images are, well, images, color
> profiles are a form of code at least according to Adobe's ICC profile
> EULA which Simon linked above).
>
> * If you run into a copyrighted *image*, you'll probably see something
> like this in the exiftool output:
>
> Copyright : PAULO SILVA LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY
> Copyright Notice : PAULO SILVA LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY
>
> This came from a random "all rights reserved" image on Flickr[1]. Not
> all such images have a notice like this, but some do. If you see
> something like this and you *don't* see any licensing data, that's a
> very large red flag that the image may not be acceptable in Ubuntu,
> and you should probably report it as a bug. For an example of such a
> bug report, see [2].
>
> * If you run into a copyrighted *color profile* on the other hand,
> you'll run into this sort of thing:
>
> Profile Copyright : Copyright Apple Inc., 2022
>
> When you hit this, you should investigate the exiftool output more
> closely, determine the color profile name, look it up, and try to
> find the copyright info. For the image that gave me this particular
> copyright notice[3], exiftool showed me that the profile was named
> "Display P3" which led me to a page on the International Color
> Consortium's website for that profile[4], where I could download it
> as a ZIP. Upon opening the ZIP, I found a License.txt file containing
> a very permissive and DFSG-compliant license within. So this
> particular profile is fine. On the other hand, another random photo I
> found[5] gave me this:
>
> Profile CMM Type : Unknown (UCCM)
> Profile Version : 2.4.0
> Profile Class : Display Device Profile
> Profile Connection Space : XYZ
> Profile Date Time : 2003:04:04 00:00:00
> Profile File Signature : acsp
> Profile Creator : Canon, Inc. (Canon Development
> Americas, Inc.)
> Profile ID : 0
> Profile Copyright : Copyright (c) 2003, Canon Inc.
> All rights reserved.
> Profile Description : sRGB v1.31 (Canon)
>
> Now I can't imagine that this "All rights reserved" really means
> there isn't any license for this profile since otherwise why would
> Canon be letting people distribute pictures taken with the profile,
> but actually trying to *find* that license is... well, if you want to
> try to find it, be my guest, I tried and failed miserably. In this
> instance it's safest to say that the profile is DFSG-noncompliant.
>
> * If you find a copyrighted *image* that isn't licensed under a
> DFSG-compliant license, the image can't come into Ubuntu or Debian,
> and you should remove the image entirely. If you find a copyrighted
> *color profile*, you can strip the profile from the image without
> removing the image entirely. GIMP can be used for this in a pinch,
> preferably upstream should strip the profile as well.
>
> Finally, don't just strip the image metadata from the image to make it
> look "kosher". That would be equivalent to deleting the copyright and
> license headers from a source code file. I only mention this since
> sarnold on IRC mentioned that the wording in Simon's email could be
> misunderstood as "just strip the metadata and you'll be fine :D" Don't
> do that, it will NOT be Simon's fault when you're found out.
>
> Whew, that ended up being a bit of a rabbit hole. Maybe image copyright
> auditing needs its own documentation page?
>
> [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/pauloprinter/54275750879
> [2] https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-126255
> [3] https://www.flickr.com/photos/46484616@N04/54274387103
> [4] https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/DisplayP3.xalter
> [5] https://www.flickr.com/photos/141175700@N02/54273195717
This is really thorough, much appreciated!
Would you be willing to provide some exact text to put in the document, or give me permission to quote you (almost) exactly in an updated copy?
Thanks in advance,
--
Simon Quigley
simon@tsimonq2.net
@tsimonq2:ubuntu.com on Matrix
tsimonq2 on LiberaChat and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
