MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Flickr Selling Your Images as Wall Art?  (Read 11100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« on: November 20, 2014, 16:51 »
+3
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
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 09:16 by PaulieWalnuts »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2014, 17:08 »
0
This is today's official announcement on tumbler:
http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/103137236584/redecorate-with-over-50-million-photos-from-flickr

And this is on Flickr's help page:
"We announced on the Flickr Blog this morning that we are now offering more than 50 million photos to print as part of Flickr Wall Art.

Eligible photos include a subset of Creative Commons images ("safe" photos with license type CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) and photos from the Flickr Marketplace. For a limited time, were offering 40% off the listed prices and these pieces are available for shipment globally.

Wall Art made with Creative Commons photos costs the same as pieces made with photos from your photostream. Wall Art made with photos from our licensed Marketplace will be priced at a premium. Participants in the licensed Marketplace will earn 51% of net sales of Wall Art sold with their photo.

Participation in the licensed Flickr Marketplace is invite-only, but we are working on tools to allow Flickr members to self-select their photos for review by our Curation team.

Flickr members who don't want their CC-BY or CC-BY-SA photos to be eligible for sale as part of Flickr Wall Art can change the license (e.g. CC-BY-NC, etc.) and the images will be removed from the selection."

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2014, 17:30 »
+1
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2014, 17:33 »
+2
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.
Some CC licences allow any use, commercial or not. I guess that's what the initials abover refer to.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2014, 02:27 »
-1
  • 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.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2014, 02:37 »
+2
Some CC licences allow any use, commercial or not. I guess that's what the initials abover refer to.

yes, some CC images from Flickr have even been used in advertising, it's all legal as long as you credit the author, which in practice can just mean an invisible watermark in a corner or printed on the back of the photo so that nobody will notice.

said that, since the CC images don't come with any model release there's of course a legal grey area to be considered, if somebody uses one of my selfies to advertise their product i could sue them and they would have no excuses to back their claims, but of course none of the freetards on flickr will sue, actually they would be very happy if somebody use their snapshots.

now, for prints it's another story as Flickr is obviously making some money off it (not too much but still money) and their users could finally make 2+2 but i'm skeptic, same will happen for Instagram etc sooner or later when they'll try to monetize in any way.

i mean, same logic for ads on photo sites, the site is making money off readers going there to watch YOUR images and you the author are getting nothing back.

how's that any different from prints or whatever ? in any case the host provider is profiting from you.

and what about the tons of CC images used in POD sites without any credit to the author ?
nobody complains and they would have a hard time finding their pics among the trillions of images available online !

if that matters this also happens for forums, we're getting nothing back from writing here but the admin is making some beer money from stock affiliates and advertising.

is it moral ? shouldn't he split the cash with us ? time will tell but without user generated content half of the internet would go bankrupt.



« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2014, 06:50 »
+2
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?  :o

« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2014, 10:27 »
-1
  • 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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2014, 11:14 »
+2
  • 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"?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 14:25 by PaulieWalnuts »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2014, 13:11 »
-2
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.

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 some free hosting infested with ads.

CC says you must credit the author, or else ... what ? nothing because if this doesn't happen nobody is going to move a finger unless you spend a lot of money in lawyers and we all know that someone posting snapshots on Flickr isn't even valueing enough his images let alone willing to waste money on lawyers and so unsurprisingly the web is flooded by uncredited CC licenced images in hires for which the author will never get a dime and neither a credit line.

being a respected academic doesn't necessarily translate in deserving respect or gratitude, as far as photographers are concerned the CC licence has badly harmed the industry and there's no going back, Lessig isn't even a pro photographer so he shouldn't even rant and rave too much about questions that don't belong to his creative background ... he would never work for free but he expect people shooting and distributing photos for free and we've already heard this tripe too many times in every possible form and shape.


« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2014, 13:52 »
+1
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. 

« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2014, 17:41 »
+2
I am not saying CC is always the right thing (I almost never CC my images, I want money) nor that it is always used by the right people and for the right ends. I was just trying to tell you that it is not a scam. It's a legal tool to ensure that you can "give your work away" while making sure that you can limit what the recipients are allowed to do with it (if you want to) and that you are cited, which to its academic creators was the most important thing. I am not saying it's right for us.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2014, 18:13 »
+1
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.

« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2014, 18:37 »
+3
CC is a suite of licenses, not just "a CC license" offering various options.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

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


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2014, 23:57 »
0
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" !






Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2014, 00:03 »
+1
to its academic creators was the most important thing. I am not saying it's right for us.

i agree but then if this was really their goal they have designed an "academic licence" specifically crafter for such purpose, instead in typical freetard style they made it all-purpose and now we've billions of CC images around and this is negatively impactinging the photo industry.

academics, lawyers, corporate execs, they would never move a finger for free but they all expect that creatives work for free or for a pittance, this is unacceptable and despite their good intentions it just turned into a ripoff.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2014, 00:10 »
+1
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.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 00:13 by Hobostocker »

ultimagina

« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2014, 06:25 »
0
It looks like influential photographers have no problem with it:
"
Thomas Leuthard
14 hrs
Flickr is selling CC licensed photos. A lot of mine are on the front page. Do I care? No. With the CC attribution license I agreed to commercial usage of my photographs."

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2014, 07:06 »
+2
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.


ultimagina

« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2014, 19:36 »
0
All in all, he is probably making more money from photography than me, anyway (he mentioned once that all his expenses and investments are paid back from various income streams).
But his FB post disappeared after I left a comment. So maybe he realized that he is being screwed by Flickr, after all.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2014, 20:29 »
0
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


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2014, 21:49 »
0
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.

Well, I'm only one person but for me Flickr seems dead. A couple years ago I deleted my images there. A few months ago I decided to try it again because the "new" Flickr. I uploaded some of my better work. Got a couple comments and then tumbleweeds. Uploaded the same stuff on 500px and got a ton of activity. It seems like the same old Flickr model with a facelift. No longer relevant and the entire company seems out of touch. 

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2014, 22:26 »
0
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 ?








 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
22575 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
2 Replies
3613 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 13:39
by melastmohican
27 Replies
13556 Views
Last post March 26, 2010, 07:48
by cathyslife
19 Replies
8320 Views
Last post June 24, 2010, 05:41
by cathyslife
2 Replies
5960 Views
Last post November 23, 2013, 11:51
by zimmytws

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors