Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Resolved]For all the Flickr pro users

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Creative commons aside, models still need to give their consent for commercial usage of their image. The mistake was more Virgin's I would say.

    Anouilh, looking at that NZ post, you appear to have most of the posts in the thread concerned which initially was on a completely different topic. The other survey I wouldn't count as being representative of the overwhelming community of online posters given that all of 150 people replied to it. As pointed out previously, Flickr has 33million users.

    As an illustration of your position, it is not adequate.

    In any case, TJM who did a talk on photographer rights the last time we did Share the Knowledge pointed out that Creative Commons as it applied here was murky and he recommended that photographers always held onto rights up front.

    Either way, this thread is wandering way off topic. If you have a special interest in copyright issues again, please open a new thread.


  • #63
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,725 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    I thought in this case it was that the original photographer was at fault for taking a photograph which they obviously were entitled to do but releasing it into a form of creative commons licence which 'legitimately' allowed Virgin Mobile's marketing company to scoop up the image off flickr and use for commercial purposes. Its been a while since I looked up the detail of the case but perhaps with no model release they were at least in some part culpable

    Yeah from what I remember it was all down to the photographer. There -was- some debate about just who was responsible for procuring the model release. I think majority opinion came down on the side of Virgin (not being responsible), as the createive commons license that he put it up under has some clause about the work being 'free from impediment' or something similar. Can't remember the details. Essentially Virgin completely in the right, no need for that 'legitimately' in quotes :-)

    -edit- see below -edit-


  • #64
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Okay, corrected on that. Thanks.


  • #65
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,725 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Calina wrote: »
    Creative commons aside, models still need to give their consent for commercial usage of their image. The mistake was more Virgin's I would say.

    Just saw this, CC actually blurs the issue a little. Ordinarily yeah, I could put an image into the public domain. If you wanted to use it commercially then you'd have to procure releases from any identifiable individuals in the photo. CC has some waiver that is meant to state that that has been done with respect to any individuals in the picture.

    I think its version one of CC ...

    http://labs.creativecommons.org/licenses/zero/1.0/legalcode

    Clause 3.

    Which, actually, upon reading it, says exactly the opposite of what I've said above. Hmmm ...


  • #66
    DaireQuinlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,725 ✭✭✭DaireQuinlan


    Calina wrote: »
    Okay, corrected on that. Thanks.

    Nope, actually my understanding of it was all wrong. The two issues are completely seperate.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Anouilh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    3073722557_7d351dabf0.jpg?v=0

    No worries.

    This thread has helped sort out many thoughts.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3073722557/sizes/o/


  • #68
    Anouilh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    Covey wrote: »
    ...

    Thats not available in pixie, so your full size image is there for all to see or nick as the case may be.
    ...

    Of course all images can be nicked, but full sized high res images is the worst of all scenarios.

    I've just uploaded again to Pix.ie this morning.

    If you make a JPEG with low DPI it should be less attractive to thieves.

    There is one advantage in Pix.ie that has just become clear.
    The code fits smoothly into Boards.ie and there is no mandatory link-back required, as the photo itself can be clicked and links to the poster's profile page.

    Very impressed...


  • #69
    Covey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    Covey wrote: »

    Of course you could upload lower sized images only to Pixie, but aside from being extra work processing, defeats the usage some people here use Flickr for.

    As I said above and DPI has nothing to do with it.


  • #70
    Anouilh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Anouilh


    There are many ideas available to minimize problems of piracy.

    http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/1405508489281010341

    Watermarks are a great deterrent.
    They usually mean I do not revisit a site that uses them, as they are often quite ugly.

    It seems that Facebook is the top photo upload site for photo sharing.

    http://www.google.com/trends?q=facebook%2C+flickr%2C+photobucket

    There is one reason to be interested in user trends.

    If a company stops putting resources into the system you choose, it could become less attractive to viewers.

    I use Zooomr from time to time, but it does not even have enough usage to make an impact on the International graph.


Advertisement