I also had a quick response from Picassa (couple of months back) to a DMCA notice.

Regarding smaller sizes being OK, I don't think that's the case. Hosting images in an album for download at 800 x 600 (for example) isn't what the license permits. From the iStock license:

"You may only use the Content for those advertising, promotional and other specified purposes which are Permitted Uses (as defined below). For clarity, you may not use the Content in products for resale, license or other distribution, unless (i) the proposed use is allowable under an Extended License which is available for the Content; or (ii) if the original Content has been fundamentally modified or transformed sufficiently that it constitutes an original work entitling the author or artist to copyright protection under applicable law, and where the primary value of such transformed or derivative work is not recognizable as the Content nor is the Content capable of being downloaded, extracted or accessed by a third party as a stand-alone file (satisfaction of these conditions will constitute the work as a �Permitted Derivative Work� for the purposes of this Agreement). For example, you cannot superficially modify the Content, print it on a t-shirt, mug, poster, template or other item, and sell it to others for consumption, reproduction or re-sale."

I would argue that under permitted use #3, "on�line or electronic publications" a Picassa album would not qualify - that's for something with some content other than the photos for download. It's only in that permitted use that the restriction of 1200 x 800 comes into play.

I also had a quick response from Picassa (couple of months back) to a DMCA notice.

Regarding smaller sizes being OK, I don't think that's the case. Hosting images in an album for download at 800 x 600 (for example) isn't what the license permits. From the iStock license:

"You may only use the Content for those advertising, promotional and other specified purposes which are Permitted Uses (as defined below). For clarity, you may not use the Content in products for resale, license or other distribution, unless (i) the proposed use is allowable under an Extended License which is available for the Content; or (ii) if the original Content has been fundamentally modified or transformed sufficiently that it constitutes an original work entitling the author or artist to copyright protection under applicable law, and where the primary value of such transformed or derivative work is not recognizable as the Content nor is the Content capable of being downloaded, extracted or accessed by a third party as a stand-alone file (satisfaction of these conditions will constitute the work as a �Permitted Derivative Work� for the purposes of this Agreement). For example, you cannot superficially modify the Content, print it on a t-shirt, mug, poster, template or other item, and sell it to others for consumption, reproduction or re-sale."

I would argue that under permitted use #3, "on�line or electronic publications" a Picassa album would not qualify - that's for something with some content other than the photos for download. It's only in that permitted use that the restriction of 1200 x 800 comes into play.

It has always bothered me that people are posting permitted use sizes on their flikr or picasa sites, even if they purchased the correct license, and then allowing downloads from that. That is NOT a permitted use, as you show above, yet there is tons of that going on. I know for a fact that you can disable downloading of images on flikr sites, yet no one seems to do it and no one seems to enforce it (meaning google, flikr, picasa or whoever). Only if it's pointed out to them.

Way to go, Sean. Glad you got it handled.

<sigh>Even exclusives aren't safe anymore.

edit. added a few more words to my last sentence to explain intent a little more. Sometimes what I type isn't exactly what I meant.