Licensing and FlickR

Paulw · 23-10-2007 12:27pm #1

Just some things to watch out on FlickR, and what license you use/allow.

Have a read of these - NY Times article and then the FlickR discussion.

Interesting stuff.

Borderfox · 23-10-2007 12:32pm

I had heard about this and it was pretty shabby by Virgin.

helios · 23-10-2007 12:34pm

Yeah, I remember seeing that a few weeks back... I think Virgin was in the right, but the photographer was deffo in the wrong. He shouldn't have attributed his shots with CC without the girls permission. I've had a few of my shots picked up and used within the bounds of the licence, but only with the person/publication telling me... I wonder if they've ever been used with me knowing...

Cabaal · 23-10-2007 12:39pm

helios wrote: »

Yeah, I remember seeing that a few weeks back... I think Virgin was in the right, but the photographer was deffo in the wrong. He shouldn't have attributed his shots with CC without the girls permission.

I'd have to agree, Virgin just followed the guidelines of the license, the photographer obviously didn't seek permission from the person in the photo and didn't understand the license they applied to the photo.

as such its the photographers fault the photo showed up where it did,

Paulw · 23-10-2007 12:41pm

It's an interesting topic and discussion. The vast majority of my photos are Copyright - all rights reserved. Obviously, if you want to just give away your photos, that's up to you. But you have to use the CC licenses with care, especially considering all the terms and options.

Just something to be aware of.

AnCatDubh · 23-10-2007 12:54pm

Am i right in thinking that the original photo was "attribution only licence"? - the lawyers will have fun. Lesson to all flickr peeps - change your default settings on flickr to claim full copyright by default. Go do it NOW!

Paulw · 23-10-2007 12:58pm

Yeah, that's it. Stupid photographer/poster.

The default on FlickR is - Copyright, all rights reserved. So, this guy only has himself to blame.

DaireQuinlan · 23-10-2007 1:00pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Am i right in thinking that the original photo was "attribution only licence"? - the lawyers will have fun. Lesson to all flickr peeps - change your default settings on flickr to claim full copyright by default. Go do it NOW!

The thing is that the default in Flickr IS all rights reserved, so this guy actually CHANGED his settings to allow CC attribution only ... and then complained when someone used his pictures ?!? The original suit even mentioned the Creative Commons institute as a defendent which was ridiculous. No excuse for stupidity. There was some debate (which hasn't been resolved IIRC) about whether or not Virgin or the photographer was responsible for obtaining a model release for the subject. CC 1.0 was pretty clear cut in this regard (it was up to the photographer) but CC 2.0 is a bit of a grey area in that regard.

gandalf · 23-10-2007 1:31pm

Yep have all my shots on full copyright by default. Thinking about adding a watermark as well. Any recommendations on what to use to do it?

As regards that story it was very poor form shown by Virgin, especially the way they used that girls image.

helios · 23-10-2007 2:06pm

gandalf wrote: »

As regards that story it was very poor form shown by Virgin, especially the way they used that girls image.

I have to disagree on this one... While Virgin wasn't a shining example for corporate responsibility, they used the photo according to the licence. It's not up to them to determine if the girl had given permission or not. If the author allows use of his works, then it's presumed that he's done everything to allow it to be used publicly.

The photographer should have either not posted the photo, changed the licence, or, had the girl sign a release.

magicbastarder · 23-10-2007 2:10pm

there are some interesting comments there too about large corporations profiting out of the goodwill of photographers. it's something i'm very uneasy about, the 'hey, i'm just flattered they used my photo' attitude.

helios · 23-10-2007 2:14pm

It's the way of the future. Why pay a photographer a lot of money, when you can pay for the single image you're looking for? I have, as a good few people here, had some of my photos picked up, and 1 even got published in a book. I have no intentions of quitting my day job, so I was more than happy to licence the photo without getting paid.

magicbastarder · 23-10-2007 2:27pm

helios wrote: »

It's the way of the future. Why pay a photographer a lot of money, when you can pay for the single image you're looking for?.

the point being they're not paying for the image, when they're well able to afford to. my objection is someone else profiting from my work, with not a penny of that profit being shared with me.

helios · 23-10-2007 2:43pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the point being they're not paying for the image, when they're well able to afford to. my objection is someone else profiting from my work, with not a penny of that profit being shared with me.

Sure, ideally everyone would want to get paid for their work, but this guy specifically set the licence on that photo in a way that would allow it to be used without him needing to be financially compensated for it.

As for me though, I would allow people to profit off my work without me getting paid, so long as I was given credit. As more and more of my photos get used, I'll be put in a better position to ask for money but at this point I'm happy enough to just get them into the public eye.

Thirdfox · 23-10-2007 2:45pm

helios wrote: »

I have to disagree on this one... While Virgin wasn't a shining example for corporate responsibility, they used the photo according to the licence. It's not up to them to determine if the girl had given permission or not. If the author allows use of his works, then it's presumed that he's done everything to allow it to be used publicly.

The photographer should have either not posted the photo, changed the licence, or, had the girl sign a release.

I don't think that even had the girl signed a release that Virgin use it in a derogatory (and potentially libelling way). Though in this case I don't think it would fall into the category of libel - depends on how good your barrister is

No-one would like to be suddenly put on "Have you got Herpes?" advertisements even if their image was part of a CC image.

All my images are copyrighted - but anyone can ask me to use it - if reasonable I'll consent. Having studied IP law I'm still not particularly fond of CC yet. Copyright allows me to control how an image is used.

Most people who take pictures/snapshots do not put any value on their image - and it's their right not to. Professional photographers should not complain. If someone can't take better pictures than the ordinary masses then they should get paid the going rate of the ordinary masses (i.e. nothing to very little).

gandalf · 23-10-2007 2:51pm

helios wrote: »

I have to disagree on this one... While Virgin wasn't a shining example for corporate responsibility, they used the photo according to the licence. It's not up to them to determine if the girl had given permission or not. If the author allows use of his works, then it's presumed that he's done everything to allow it to be used publicly.

The photographer should have either not posted the photo, changed the licence, or, had the girl sign a release.

A couple of things, I don't think from reading the comments in that thread on flickr that the photographer realised exactly what a creative commons license is. So yes he is partly to blame.

But a major corporation with a full legal department should have realised the issues involved in using these pictures and should have investigated them. The same for the advertising agency who developed the campaign, they would be more familiar with this area that the chap who took the photo and who wasn't even notified that they used his picture.

What you say is fair enough if you make your living from taking photographs but if you are an amateur or a hobbyist you may not know the ins and outs of the legalities of selling pictures.

magicbastarder · 23-10-2007 3:14pm

helios wrote: »

As for me though, I would allow people to profit off my work without me getting paid, so long as I was given credit. As more and more of my photos get used, I'll be put in a better position to ask for money

given that more and more people are allowing their work to be used for free, the chance of you making money becomes rarer and rarer, though.

helios · 23-10-2007 3:22pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

given that more and more people are allowing their work to be used for free, the chance of you making money becomes rarer and rarer, though.

Not completely. If I been published in maybe a half-dozen or so books, then maybe at that point I would ask for a small pittance, or, change my Creative Commons to show that I want money for it.

If I had always been asking for money, my shots may not have gotten picked up in the first place...

Paulw · 23-10-2007 3:36pm

Under the CC, you don't have to notify the photographer, just give them credit, which the poster did.

It seems that it was really the photographer who messed up, and now everyone is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Vodafone did very little wrong, although the person in the photo is under age. But then again, you can't always tell what age someone is from a photo, and they could claim that they believed she was over 18.

It is really up to the photographer to understand what CC they use. If you want to give away your work, that's fine. Your choice since it's your time, equipment and effort. Personally, my work is Copyrighted, and if someone wants to use my photos, then they can ask me. I have allowed some images to be used without payment but with credit before, but in the whole, if someone wants to use my images, then they can at least pay me something, especially if they are making money from my images, or including my images.

AnCatDubh · 23-10-2007 7:12pm

slightly off the creative commons topic but...... i bet virgin and the ad agency concerned and the photographer are sooooooooooo glad it was a church sponsored outing that the picture was taken at.... eh.... too bad they didn't believe in the bit about turning the other cheek. it might have been a better side to be photographed on (arf, arf!) ;0)

Licensing and FlickR

Comments