My printer also strips out the meta data... should I contact canon.

If this is all about theft prevention or tracking stolen images, it's all pretty much a waste of time.

Seriously, considering the ease of stripping meta data from an image what does it matter whether the meta data is in there on social sites to start with?
The ones who really want to steal the images will strip it out if they like, change the copyright even and do whatever they want to it. The ones who don't are just likely to be tumbling, pinning or saving the images as desktop wallpaper.

The number of these thieves who actually had a budget to purchase images in the first place is next to none, so we can't moan as if we're losing money because this money didn't exist. Heck, people are now googling more for free photographs than they are for photographers, this is just the nature of our industry.

What we should be doing is considering what the value is in uploading images to these social networks?

We're all putting too much energy into inflating these companies whilst creating a space on their networks, but in reality when we leave that network our audience on the whole won't follow us (we're all easily replaced). We'd also be leaving behind the space we made for ourselves and all of the traffic which migrated to it. They own this now, not us.

Photo's exif info:

I have recently been the victim of camera theft while working as a professional photographer on set. I was told by my contacts that I can use stolencamerafinder.com to search for exif data matching my stolen camera's as well as lens info embedded in the exif. Much to my disappointment I had to learn that facebook, twitter and some other sites completely strip the info, meaning that my neighbour can have my camera, take pics with it and upload it and I don't even know about it. It's doesn't serve to protect the photographers at all! I am sure I would have been able to track down my equipment by now.
It is my opinion that they do it on purpose to avoid any legal matters stemming from this but I stand to be corrected as to why exactly they choose to do it.

Just bend over an take it

"My printer also strips out the meta data... should I contact canon."

Yes, if Canon starts stealing your photos or allows others to do so.

Your argument boils down to the same old "If you put it online, you can expect it to be stolen, so either don't put it online or just expect to give away your rights." Won't get far like that in 2013, unless you go full retro-grouch and back to paper portfolios and maybe slideshows.

The fact that thieves will steal anyway, is hardly a reason to explain away the efforts of other to make it easier for them to steal.

As for the article, Flickr has metadata obviously visible if uploaders chose to keep it, so I wonder where the stripping is occurring?

It's not about image theft.

Not sure how the first commenter goes straight to "theft prevention or tracking stolen images", neither of which were mentioned in this article. Those might be possible benefits of complete metadata, but aren't what is really at issue here.

I have seen all too often images that have been shared with no attribution to the creator. Certainly some people don't care and wouldn't give attribution even if they knew who it belonged to. In many cases though, I see other photographers lamenting the fact that they don't know who the photographer is, and therefore can't give them the credit they deserve.

The issue is that by the time your image goes through the wringer a few time on these different networks, there is simply nothing left to connect it to you. Sure, you could watermark it, but that's another debate all to itself. It's about attribution, not theft.

It's a great safety net

I think it’s for safety reasons. The vast majority of people won’t know what metadata is, and if they have heard of it would have no idea on how to check what they are broadcasting to the world. Think of what data, like your home address etc could be in there, inadvertently added via an install wizard or sum-such mechanism. Now imagine it is your daughter who has just left home and is blogging pictures of her cat, lamenting she is home alone for the week.
There are very valid reasons to strip metadata, not least the insurance payout if FB gets Mary-Sue axe murdered. I may seem to be light hearted but am still making a very valid point.
For us photographers, it would be nice to have the option or not. Even on Flickr I edit my metadata. We should be thanking these social networking sites for thinking of our safety when we have not.

legal theft

This is the equivalent of you letting a friend borrow your car only to find out he transferred the title to himself and now rents the car out for $...

www.studio-4a.com

Metadata is not only about Copyrights etc.

Metadata is not a theft prevention tool, it's a means of providing valuable information along with an image, including shot location, date, explanation of the content and its context, image's usage history and availability terms, photographer's contact information, etc., which can help an interested viewer tremendously.

If you're worried about infringement or abuse, you still have to slap on a visible watermark, and I doubt that'll ever change. I am worried, but more about the social networks themselves than their users. They change their use terms anytime they wish, anyway they like, and I'm yet to see any of those get better for the users.

I can live with the occasional thief, but next time a network blurts out an intention to claim rights to uploaded images, I don't want my work be caught without a watermark.

Don't be surprised

Isn't it obvious that the advent of digital photography meant there was going to be a great free-for-all with images being wholesalely lifted all over the shop anyway?
A simple solution?
USE FILM.
They can steal your images, but at least you'll have the negatives . .

Digimarc

Any comments about the digimarc system? There is a demo include in Photoshop, filters panel...

They all do

I'm glad you you've written about this but nearly every bit of software that uploads to the net deletes meta data. The same people that are looking for the orphans bill are the very same people that are creating them in the frist place. Win Win ! For them .

meta data removal alteration

Meta data removal is an alteration of the photographic file that can result in litigation if removal can be shown to harm the artists. Copyright has never existed in the least in the United States and nobody on earth cares about the rights being surrendered by removal of metadata.

Attribution is the key term

What's the point of having the negative when all the value of the original is wrung out by having being posted all over the place.

We have to have our work online to reach a market, and we give away a whole amount for free - kissing frogs is the only way we find our next customer and we give away an amount we decide we're happy with for the exposure.

Stripping away the metadata as standard means the frog that turns out to be a prince has no way to find us.

It can't be seen on the page - doesn't change the page layout.
The determined or nefarious would certainly strip out metadata anyway but the vast majority who knew it to be there would leave it in place if it were just one less step than removing it.

Photograph attribution

I've seen photographers add their name or website address to the bottom of a photo.
Most people sharing will be too lazy or not care about removing it. That way at least everyone is clear as to the creator.
Can be a good way to get exposure therefore.

How to enforce?

All the issues have been set out, stripping data is bad.

Onto, how does one legislate and enforce keeping the data in place?

We tend to walk around in circles and end up at the beginning, identified the problem and can't offer any way to control it.