The data <i>can</i> be faked or deleted within IPTC fields, of course.<p>What IPTC fields have over the typical ways of handling attribution is that they are not left behind when the image file is copied--so they should be more resistant to <i>accidental</i> removal of attribution metadata.<p>On most websites, the attribution is a line of text that is displayed next to the image. Anyone copying the image, who wishes to preserve attribution, must also separately copy the attribution text. Then they need a way to store that text, and keep it associated with the image. Not easy, actually!<p>&gt; Once the photo metadata is gone, it is too easy for others to claim it is an &#x27;orphan work&#x27; and avoid liability under copyright law.<p>You cannot avoid liability this way. Under the law, it is the responsibility of the person using an image to know that they have the right to use it. Just claiming &quot;I thought it was orphaned&quot; does not work if you are being sued by the actual image rightsholder.<p>&gt; I use and rely on Exif tags a lot but they are fragile and you cannot rely on them staying embedded with your images once they hit the web.<p>Yes, this is my point! They&#x27;re fragile because web services don&#x27;t preserve them--but theoretically they could.<p>The cynical side of me thinks that a lot of web services don&#x27;t <i>want</i> to know all the rights data for the media they carry. Ignoring rights gets them more traffic and engagement, and under the relevant law (the DMCA), they are allowed to. All they have to do is remove infringing images when the rights holder requests it.