The only issue I faced is that I’m collecting photos from my camera and my phone: they both use different naming conventions. So when I look at my photos, I first have all the photos from my phone in chronological order then I am forced to go back to the beginning of the event and look at all the photos from my camera (again in chronological order).

The solution I applied is to take into account the EXIF tag concerning the date/time each photo was taken in order to rename the file accordingly. For that I use exiv2:

exiv2 -r'%Y%m%d-%H%M_:basename:' rename $(ls)

The result are names like: 20110515-1814_IMG_3704.JPG. This is easily sorted. Provided my phone and my camera date/time settings are approximately synchronised, it solves the issue mentioned before.

Now not all pictures are rotated. Most file managers and photo editing software take care of that and show you corrected photo if needed (Nautilus and Gimp do that at least). But some software do not take that into account (I think of Piwigo for instance). Here I use jhead with the following command:

jhead -ft -autorot *.JPG

Now in order to get some photos out of the computer,

• I just use a regular USB key to give the photo shop and print some photos ;
• I use a simple FTP client to upload some photos to our private photo gallery ;
• I use Postr (previously mentioned here) to upload some photos to my Flickr gallery ;
• I finally sometimes use the Picasa web interface to upload a few pictures there.

And you, how are you managing your photos?

P.S. By the way, I recently discovered a nice tip to transform all spaces in file names by underscores (or any other character):

rename ' ' '_' *

Original picture: Honey, I crashed your car!

Now you can watch people on the Bruxelles Grand Place and watch what is interesting for people operating the webcam …

The interesting thing is that they give a link to the original photo (at the end of the article) and wrote a nice note on Flickr

What was interesting for me was the way they did it. I came to know it via an e-mail from Emma Williams (from Schmap) telling me my photo was included. And, at first sight (*), they correctly understand the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0: attribution is on their website, as well as the “cc” logo next to the image. And they link to the the image on Flickr

(*) If you read the terms of use, you’ll notice all the material (including third-party material) “are protected by copyright laws. You may only access and use the Materials for personal or educational purposes and not for resell or commercial purposes by You or any third parties”. My photo is also protected by copyright laws but you can access it for other purposes than personal or educational uses, you can sell them (the cc-by-sa allows it). Since the transformation they did is “only” a resizing, does it really matter since the original material is given and resizing is easy to re-do?

The answer quickly came from Matthew Day, database publisher:

From: Matthew Day
To: Jean-Etienne Poirrier
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:55:39 +0200
Subject: RE: Photo license issue

Dear Jean-Etienne,

I’m sorry that we have published a derivative of your image without putting the new work under a Creative Commons license. As you adroitly guessed, we cannot publish the derivative work under CC as it contains components from other sources.

I would be willing to discuss with you a way of keeping the image, and your credit, on the NRSC article. However, an additional complexity is that I see that you are posting a PDF of the article on your blog. The cleanest solution for us may be to simply remove the image and PDF from our websites.

If you’d like to discuss this, I could call you tomorrow or Friday if you are free and can email me your contact number.

With best wishes,

Matthew Day,
Database Publisher
Nature Publishing Group

Matthew also removed the image from the website (before my answer). So I removed the PDF of the article (a personal copy but I don’t think I could consider it as a self-archived article) from this blog.

From an initial error, I think the Nature Publishing Group reacted correctly.

Here is the article full reference: DeWitt, N. “Animal-human chimeras: Summary of UK Academy of Medical Sciences Report” Nature Reports Stem Cells, published online on August, 2nd, 2007.

Note that I don’t know if they completely comply with the photo license since the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 allows them to re-use the photo and do the modifications, provided they give credit (ok) and distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to the CC-by-sa. They are not clearly stating to others the licence terms of their new work …

⁽¹⁾ As Jan Schoones wrote in his comment, it’s not published in Nature itself but in Nature Reports Stem Cells, a journal published by the same company as Nature but which does not have an impact factor! (Edited on August, 20th)