From PetaPixel "Flickr Opens Up 50 Million Creative Commons and Licensed Images for Flickr Wall Art" http://petapixel.com/2014/11/20/flickr-opens-50-million-creative-commons-licensed-images-flickr-wall-art/

So I haven't been able to find much information on this and because of that here's my guess. I hope I'm wrong.

• Flickr is making money on this
• The company doing the printing is making money on this
• The buyer is getting a nice print
• The image creator is getting nothing

ETA: Okay so looks like some people will get something

Thanks ShadySue. So it looks like a select few people that are part of the Marketplace will get 51% of net sales and Creative Commons people will get nothing. I never knew Creative Commons allowed for resale.

• The image creator is getting nothing

serves them right.
the freetards wouldn't believe the CC licence was a scam and now they'll learn a lesson or two.

I don't agree with it but that's what happens when millions of people don't care about the images they take .. somebody thinks of a way to take advantage of you for a quick buck ... ok a lot of quick bucks. I'm sure that an insane number of people have absolutely no clue that their images will be sold this way because they're just hobbyists. Just as you can bet at some point there was an executive who said ... we can do this and an insane number of people will never even have a clue we're doing it !!! I wonder what kind of raise that person got? 

Quote from: Hobostocker on November 21, 2014, 02:27

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 20, 2014, 16:51

• The image creator is getting nothing

serves them right.
the freetards wouldn't believe the CC licence was a scam and now they'll learn a lesson or two.

I am sorry, but that's BS. CC is not a scam, it's been created by one of the most respected intellectual property experts of our time (Prof. Lawrence Lessig, currently of Harvard University). But you have to realize what it was created for: academia. What he mostly had in mind was a way for professors and other academics to freely share without publishing houses and the like inhibiting this flow of ideas. And yes, applying this to photos (taken by or for academics) makes sense, too. In academia, having your name credited -- getting cited -- really is worth money.

While that's what it may have been intended for, what it has evolved into seems to be something different. I looked at the list of CC board members and advisors and there seems to be a lot of corporate influence. Microsoft? Macmillan Publishers? http://creativecommons.org/board That would be like a group of gamers who don't like paying for games coming up with feel-good program to make video games free.

And getting cited, or "exposure", could have value in some situations. Mostly brand awareness which if used correctly could lead to making more money. But if the only direct benefit is being cited, such as with CC, how would this be "worth money"?

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on November 21, 2014, 10:27

I am sorry, but that's BS. CC is not a scam, it's been created by one of the most respected intellectual property experts of our time (Prof. Lawrence Lessig, currently of Harvard University)......

CC is indeed a scam because the way it's used in the real world by corporations like Yahoo/Flickr is nothing but a way to grab the fruits of the photographers' work giving nothing back apart ...

well said Hobo.
ironic that some dude from Harvard ( how much is his salary there? btw?)
it smells really, in the same way with universities allowing photo-copying of books,etc without any compensation to the authors,etc...
while all this is going on as "educational", and the students are charge 25 cts a page or whatever.
it fills the pocket of the University, and the respected professor(s) who claim to be protecting the rights of the common good.
intellectual double-speak or whatever they call it. 

The advance warning was when they started saying we had unlimited upload storage and encouraging us to upload maximum sizes. Why on earth would they do that out of the goodness of their hearts?

It's good that CC suppliers can opt out of this, but to be honest I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read this thread as I don't read their blog or anything else. Seeing the OP made me go to investigate.

Users need to pay attention to what they're offering and what the options are, as with any and all photo licensing.

legally there would NO need at all for users to pick up a licence when uploading photos on public web sites as they own the copyright of the images since the moment the photo has been shot ! it's automatic and this is accepted worldwide.

if anyone will steal their images they can be sued and held liable.

licences are designed to grant some freedoms to 3rd party users, not to protect the authors from whatever crime or abuse as this as already covered by IP laws and enforced across the globe.

what the croo-ks at Yahoo/Flickr/Istagram/etc are doing is giving uploaders the false idea that if they choose CC licence their photos will be safer and better suited for the actual online environment but this is total BS in legal terms, it just translates in giving croo-ks a way to steal and reuse and resell your work giving nothing back apart a credit line or a link ! and this would be legally unacceptable if they just upload and set the image as "copyright mr. xxx yyy" !

intellectual double-speak or whatever they call it.

i'm a great fan of scientific research but these guys should definitely avoid messing up with things outside of their field of competence as the results of their ill-designed ideas to "save the world" are usually unpredictable and toxic for those who make a living from selling or licencing products that now have to compete in market flooded by free or semi-free competition.

they must be proud having almost killed the music/video/photo/ebook business, what's next ?
they dream about an utopic free world with total disregard for actual full time authors who are ultimately the only ones producing worthy stuff, two wrongs don't a make a right and there's no guarantee that 1 billion Instagram snapshots are better than just one set of professionally produced images by a skilled artist.

Do I care? No. "

except he's not a Pro photographer paying his bills with photography.

he's just an ITer doing b/w street photography for fun and profit, he's also doing some workshops (probably for free), he's giving away 3-4 ebooks for free, he's shooting with an olympus OM-D, no hints about him selling prints or merchandising or doing stock or fine art.

in short, this guy perfectly fits the Flickr semi-pro userbase and unsurprisingly he doesn't care but considering his background his opinion means nothings to us.

Interesting they'd rather refund the sales than share the proceeds with the authors.

yahoo is really going down the drain at an impressive speed.

these execs are paid a sh-itload of money to come up with monetizing ideas and all they're doing is scre-wing their own user base, losing face, losing reputation, time, and money.

why they don't just give an option for any user to sell prints and merchanding and turn Flickr into a POD ?
makes sense, but for whatever reason they never took this path and you can bet the reason is piracy and licences as they should screen each photo one by one to make sure it's legal and belonging to the author and they would also be legally resonspible in case of IP infringement.

which is probably the same good reason Youtube is not allowing the sale of videos etc

No longer relevant and the entire company seems out of touch.

correct, and there's a good reason for it because most of these companies were born just as a rough idea that later became a web-app and a startup and finally got some backing from a VC with the business plan of being sold.

so, from the very start they never have a plant to become profitable, they never designed the app to offer paid services or to be monetized in any way apart with advertising banners.

what Yahoo bought was just a pool of users locked-in into a photo app but they had no way to know for sure if this could be monetized properly.

and of course now they look out of touch with reality, Flickr is a thing of the past and nowadays users are much more in tune with stuff like Instagram and other mobile apps.

ironically when Flickr was launched i remember it was an instant hit because it was one of the first mainstream web sites being labeled "web 2.0" due to the overuse of JS/Ajax while now this is taken for granted and won't impress anyone, the design of Flickr also looks like a relic of the old dot-com boom, the fonts, the colors, everything smells old, it's no match with the sleek design of 500px, 1px, etc etc and indeed many old time users got tired of the whole idea around Flickr as now there are so many other options and social networks are also used first and foremost to post and to comment photos which wasn't available when Flickr started many years ago.

so, Flickr becoming more and more irrilevant unless they find a way to implement some new killer features that make them unique allowing them to stand out of the crowd, but how ? even wanting, the entire site must be redesigned from top to bottom and it will still be a poorman's clone of FB, just with a focus on photography.

is this really what their users want ?