MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Flickr scraps plan to sell users' photos as wall art after licensing row  (Read 4066 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

stock-will-eat-itself

« on: December 22, 2014, 17:38 »
0


« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2014, 20:14 »
0
It's bad enough when others come to the site to rip off photographers, now you had to challenge the company themselves?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2014, 20:28 »
0
It's bad enough when others come to the site to rip off photographers, now you had to challenge the company themselves?


?????

« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2014, 20:56 »
0
It's bad enough when others come to the site to rip off photographers, now you had to challenge the company themselves?


?????
I had many many images taken without permission off of Flickr and used for promotional and advertising schemes. Although the images Flickr was to be using were CC, it still seems like an outright ripoff to me.

« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2014, 22:21 »
+1
"Though the service sparked controversy, it wasnt illegal. The prints were made from photos shared to Flickr using the attribution license, which allows commercial use. "

Yeah, I don't get it.  The posters are just getting what they wanted by using the CC license.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2014, 22:25 »
0
it still seems like an outright ripoff to me.

it is, and they know that random photographers living outside the US will never bother sueing a rich multinational like Yahoo from overseas to recoup the loss of a few dollars in licencing or whatever, same logic for all the scams on ebay and on e-commerce in general.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2014, 22:34 »
+1
"Though the service sparked controversy, it wasnt illegal. The prints were made from photos shared to Flickr using the attribution license, which allows commercial use. "

Yeah, I don't get it.  The posters are just getting what they wanted by using the CC license.

CC is confusing and i'm sure most of the users have no idea what a licence is designed for, on the other side Yahoo probably realized the whole affair will be turned into a PR fiasco and went into damage control but the real reason must have been that print sales were poor so it wasn't worth it anyway.

« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2014, 12:01 »
+2
anyone who uploads max res to Flickr should not be whining about having their work "ripped-off". it's like a poultry farmer screaming bloody murder after bringing home a fox (thinking it is a cute puppy), and putting it in the hen-house to sleep with the cock and the rest of the chicks  ;D

 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2014, 12:55 »
+2
This is Confusing?

License:

CC BY Attribution

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

I won't allow anything creative commons, even if it means I won't get the so called free promotion or "maximum dissemination and use". No thanks.

Share alike also allows commercial use.

Why would I give away my work and allow other to use it commercially?

« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2014, 13:31 »
+2
This is Confusing?

License:

CC BY Attribution

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

I won't allow anything creative commons, even if it means I won't get the so called free promotion or "maximum dissemination and use". No thanks.

Share alike also allows commercial use.

Why would I give away my work and allow other to use it commercially?
Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2014, 16:44 »
+2
This is Confusing?

License:

CC BY Attribution

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

I won't allow anything creative commons, even if it means I won't get the so called free promotion or "maximum dissemination and use". No thanks.

Share alike also allows commercial use.

Why would I give away my work and allow other to use it commercially?
Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.

I'd agree with both points.

CC is pretty clear to me. Not confusing legal language or anything.

I see plenty of news websites using free images with photographer credit at least some of which is probably CC. These days if a news website does a "Top 25" article a lot of it will have free images, a handful of micro images, a maybe one or two macro images. And the only reason they used any stock is because they had to because they couldn't find a suitable free image. So any commercial photographer who's giving work away is hurting themselves and the industry as a whole.

« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2014, 17:01 »
+1
Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.

i cannot answer for pete, but i can tell you why?
there are lots of GWC participating in paid shoots of sexy gals, and they want to be known as one of those guys who shoot women in little bikinis and hopefully pulling off their knickers for them.
you see the same dudes at these shoots, all carrying big bazooka lenses like they work for Playhog or Henhouse. no prize award for guessing which magazines i scratched off  ;D

Uncle Pete

« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2014, 22:29 »
0
And I agree etudiante, I can only answer for myself. I won't give anything useful to Flickr, it's just a place with a name holder. I won't license anything Creative Commons. WHY? Work for recognition? Does that put gas in the car or food on the table?

I do work for food, sometimes dinner and drinks.  ;D Honest, I have and I will again. I've worked for access and credits for magazines, which includes Free Lunch and AND I own all rights to all my images.

But the one I like best is CASH!


Pete, this is a question I often ponder over. I know there are people who contribute to Getty, via the Flickr deal, who allow images that weren't selected to the Getty collection to be used in the Creative Commons license. It's absurd. I can, if I hit my head against a wall enough times, understand how an amateur may enjoy seeing their images used in a commercial fashion. But why someone would give away thousands of uses when they are trying to also make a living at selling images goes beyond the understandable.

i cannot answer for pete, but i can tell you why?
there are lots of GWC participating in paid shoots of sexy gals, and they want to be known as one of those guys who shoot women in little bikinis and hopefully pulling off their knickers for them.
you see the same dudes at these shoots, all carrying big bazooka lenses like they work for Playhog or Henhouse. no prize award for guessing which magazines i scratched off  ;D


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors