MicrostockGroup

Buyers use photo sharing sites to post up their images all the time.  I assume they are sharing them with clients or something.  Or was there something else?

Sure there are other ways to share photos but Flickr is the easiest way and is well known to most people. What you say is correct but unfortunately, most people/buyers rarely has the owner of the image in mind when they are doing something. Only when there is a good chance of a monetary penalty or jail time from their actions would things change for the better for the image owner.

The question was is this a copyright violation and the answer is yes. I disagree that flickr is easier than any other non public solution but even if it were, you can set permissions on flickr to only allow certain users (such as "friends") to view images. There's no excuse for this and if it were my image, being credited to the uploader as copyright owner and available to anyone to take, I'd go after them and notify flickr as well. Perhaps Yuri Arcurs is acquiescent because he makes so much that a theft or two or five hundred doesn't effect his bottom line.

IF both of those images have been uploaded by Yuri or a Yuri Co., and IF Yuri is the original copyright owner, then no, there is no infringement. Pretty stupid, IMHO, to upload and share unwatermarked images, but not an infringement. If Yuri wants to give stuff away, it's his perogative.

IF both of those images are copyrighted by Yuri, and one or both of those companies (who have no affiliation whatsoever to Yuri) have purchased the image and are now allowing downloading, then YES, copyright infringement.

I see what you mean, displaying is NOT infringing. But they are allowing downloading of a medium-sized unwatermarked image. Again, IF the two people have purchased a medium sized image and are allowing re-downloading of it and they are NOT the copyright holder, then yes, copyright infringement.

No. Downloading an image (or leaving it available for download) is not copyright infringement __ that only occurs if someone downloads and uses a copyrighted image that they do not have a license for.

As it happens you'll probably find that the vast majority of stock images correctly licensed and used for display on web content are not right-click protected or anything. I've often found my own images in action that are effectively available to anyone to download frequently up to Medium size.

^^^ I think that would be termed 'license infringement' rather than copyright infringement. Legitimate buyers do it all the time and, as far as I'm aware, none of the agencies take any action or enforce it.

Posting -anything- on the web allows for downloading. If you can't download it, you can't view it.  A web page full of X's would look a little silly .

I dont like it either, but until the license prohibits it, it's not particularly illegal.

Every internet site that you upload images to has that.  Even Google image search.  If there's a weak point in the system, that's it.

According to Flickr terms and conditions the uploader has to have the necessary rights to post the images on his/her account.

I'm sure that any IP lawyer will be able to argue this in all possible directions but initially Flickr was supposed to be a platform for people to display their own images and not to post other peoples images - obviously.

Why would someone want to post images taken by someone else?

While some total uneducated "business people" exchange images this way (ever heard of email - duh) or for proofing purposes these people should be slapped on their fingers.

Flickr in its original intent is a great tool. Millions of contributors get a chance to publish their own content - with or without watermark, their choice.

But to post images that you don't have the rights for is plain stupid, useless and disrespectful.

Please give me one legal and valid reason why I would want to post someone elses images on my own Flickr account? I don't get it.

Exactly, it's beyond me as there are literally dozens of ways to share or display content to anyone in the world on a more private level.

There is absolutely no reason to publish those things to the world on Flickr.

One would think that even smaller business (with a web site, hence a host) can publish their stuff in password protected areas or via FTP.

Yousendit, Rapidshare and the likes were meant to be used that way.

It doesn't take much common sense to see that those people publishing the images wildly on Flickr obviously want to share or offer them for free download. There is simply no other reason besides stroking some failed photographer's ego.