Author Topic: Fotolia images on Flickr (Read 13618 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** March 14, 2010, 14:27 »

This Flickr user had one of my images (multiple copies of) in his photostream along with many other Fotolia images. I have sent Yahoo the required takedown notice for my images, but you may want to take a look and see if any of yours are there and do the same.

In the past I've found Yahoo to be very prompt at dealing with this sort of thing - but you must follow the wording in their copyright/IP notice to get them to act.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2010, 15:41 »

Thanks for posting Jsnover

This looks mostly like a collection of photos for local community events. Why do you suppose this person would post multiple copies of other peoples Fotolia images here? I don't get it.

madelaide · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2010, 19:06 »

He possibly thinks it is ok to share images, even if they are copyrighted by others.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2010, 20:13 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 14, 2010, 14:27

This Flickr user had one of my images (multiple copies of) in his photostream along with many other Fotolia images. I have sent Yahoo the required takedown notice for my images, but you may want to take a look and see if any of yours are there and do the same.

In the past I've found Yahoo to be very prompt at dealing with this sort of thing - but you must follow the wording in their copyright/IP notice to get them to act.

Some people use Flickr to host their images.

Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.

click_click · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2010, 18:24 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 14, 2010, 20:13

...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.

I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...

cardmaverick · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:27 »

Quote from: click_click on March 15, 2010, 18:24

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 14, 2010, 20:13
...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.

I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...

As opposed to the exact same images being hosted on the buyers website - equal size, equally downloadable with still no searchable metadata? Copyright is full of holes, like a leaky boat getting ready to sink.

click_click · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:42 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 16, 2010, 09:27

Quote from: click_click on March 15, 2010, 18:24
Quote from: cardmaverick on March 14, 2010, 20:13
...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.

I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...

As opposed to the exact same images being hosted on the buyers website - equal size, equally downloadable with still no searchable metadata? Copyright is full of holes, like a leaky boat getting ready to sink.

I don't get it. The images are copyrighted not the keywords (whether they are there or not).

Whoever uses unlicensed content is committing copyright infringement. No matter if they get the image from Flickr or a buyer's web site.

If you want you can go to your nearest supermarket and take a bottle of Whiskey and walk out of there without paying. Just because you might not get caught doesn't make it right.

Who cares if the images are search-able? They are there and they have been used without a valid license, that's all that matters.

Danicek · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2010, 09:53 »

^^ That's not true. They don't offer the images for download. The fact that they can be downloaded does not mean anything in this context. If you use it for you project on website, then it also can be downloaded. They marked those images as copyrighted on Flickr meaning that not them but anyone downloading them from Flickr and using them commits the crime, not them.

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:04 »

While technically the images on Fllickr have a nice "© " next to each picture most people who visit Flickr have no clue what that means.

Maybe not in this case, but often stock images are being uploaded there for the sole purpose of offering them for free to the "image community" (or whatever they call themselves).

At least once a week I'm in touch with people who stole my images from Google's image search. 100% of these people "had no clue" that the images were copyrighted and/or that they just cannot be simply downloaded and be used.

People don't care. That's our first problem. The second problem is former buyers dumping their archives on to photo sharing sites. It doesn't take a genius to guess what will happen once these images are online.

And while people do have the "option" of downloading an image from a buyer's web site it is also obvious that sites like Flickr do have significant more visitors and therefore more exposure to such criminals than almost any individual web site.

Whether this user intended to display his images to the entire world or just wanted to show them or exchange them with colleagues from the same company (which would be alright if a license is present), he/she needs to be made aware of their doing. We can't just assume that all the people all over the world suddenly understand copyright or the term royalty FREE.

cathyslife · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2010, 15:46 »

Quote

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

I don't think that's true. If they are allowing the images to be shared by multiple members, they would have needed to purchase an appropriate seat license for that and right off the top of my head, I am not sure which sites offer that license. And there is NO existing license on any of the sites, that I know of, that allows one person to purchase a web-sized image, post it on their site, and allow others to "share" it. Whether there is a download button there or not. That's called re-distribution and copyright infringement. They are allowed to purchase the image, post it on their site for their own personal use, period.

And if they did purchase the correct license, they should have kept the copyright information of the contributor intact or given them credit. I'm not sure this is a requirement, but...

FD · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:03 »

Quote from: Danicek on March 16, 2010, 09:53

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

You can easily obtain that by setting those images "private" on Flickr, and then only your contacts/friends can see/download those. He didn't: all images are public and downloadable. That alone shows the criminal intent of unlawful redistribution.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:30 »

Quote

You can easily obtain that by setting those images "private" on Flickr, and then only your contacts/friends can see/download those.

And I have a feeling that this is what most people do when we complain to flickr/yahoo. They set their collection to private. But if they are allowing contacts, friends, whoever to download, without having purchased the correct license, they are still re-distributing and it is a copyright violation. And shame on flickr/yahoo if they are allowing people to do that.

qwerty · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2010, 17:16 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 16, 2010, 15:46

Quote
In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

I don't think that's true. If they are allowing the images to be shared by multiple members, they would have needed to purchase an appropriate seat license for that and right off the top of my head, I am not sure which sites offer that license. And there is NO existing license on any of the sites, that I know of, that allows one person to purchase a web-sized image, post it on their site, and allow others to "share" it. Whether there is a download button there or not. That's called re-distribution and copyright infringement. They are allowed to purchase the image, post it on their site for their own personal use, period.

And if they did purchase the correct license, they should have kept the copyright information of the contributor intact or given them credit. I'm not sure this is a requirement, but...

The only license that would allow it would be "buy the rights" on dreamstime

Kone · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2010, 18:28 »

Quote from: Danicek on March 16, 2010, 09:53

^^ That's not true. They don't offer the images for download. The fact that they can be downloaded does not mean anything in this context. If you use it for you project on website, then it also can be downloaded. They marked those images as copyrighted on Flickr meaning that not them but anyone downloading them from Flickr and using them commits the crime, not them.

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

WRONG!!!

If it is copyrighted that means that the person who posted the image has to have the copyright for it. They cannot post it without the proper license and even with the license (purchased from the agency) they have to state the name of the copyrighter (or photographer). I doubt anybody licensed the images for Flickr so they can't post any of our images. That means that they can't use Flicker to store our images (that they have purchased from agencies) even if they put our names underneath the image.

Kone

Kone · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2010, 18:39 »

Quote from: qwerty on March 16, 2010, 17:16

Quote from: cclapper on March 16, 2010, 15:46
Quote
In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

I don't think that's true. If they are allowing the images to be shared by multiple members, they would have needed to purchase an appropriate seat license for that and right off the top of my head, I am not sure which sites offer that license. And there is NO existing license on any of the sites, that I know of, that allows one person to purchase a web-sized image, post it on their site, and allow others to "share" it. Whether there is a download button there or not. That's called re-distribution and copyright infringement. They are allowed to purchase the image, post it on their site for their own personal use, period.

And if they did purchase the correct license, they should have kept the copyright information of the contributor intact or given them credit. I'm not sure this is a requirement, but...

The only license that would allow it would be "buy the rights" on dreamstime

Agree!!!

So did they "buy the rights"?
NO!!!

Kone

Danicek · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:54 »

Quote from: Kone on March 16, 2010, 18:28

Quote from: Danicek on March 16, 2010, 09:53
^^ That's not true. They don't offer the images for download. The fact that they can be downloaded does not mean anything in this context. If you use it for you project on website, then it also can be downloaded. They marked those images as copyrighted on Flickr meaning that not them but anyone downloading them from Flickr and using them commits the crime, not them.

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

WRONG!!!

If it is copyrighted that means that the person who posted the image has to have the copyright for it. They cannot post it without the proper license and even with the license (purchased from the agency) they have to state the name of the copyrighter (or photographer). I doubt anybody licensed the images for Flickr so they can't post any of our images. That means that they can't use Flicker to store our images (that they have purchased from agencies) even if they put our names underneath the image.

Kone

Ok, you are probably right.

Danicek · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:56 »

cardmaverick · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2010, 13:25 »

Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.

Get over it.

Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2010, 14:47 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 17, 2010, 13:25

Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.

Get over it.

Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

Whats IP mean?

click_click · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:16 »

IP = Intellectual Property

Kone · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2010, 16:03 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 17, 2010, 13:25

Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.

Get over it.

Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

Could you tell us more?
Thank you,

Kone

FD · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2010, 21:28 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on March 17, 2010, 13:25

Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

Did you see the Light too, brother? I'm currently looking into Buddhism.

cathyslife · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:52 »

Quote

Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.

Get over it.

Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

Please share with us what great ideas you have for solving the problem and how you personally have done something to help it. For right now, we are all trying to do the best we can. We are a drop in the bucket, for sure. But a whole bunch of drops equals a full bucket.

If you have a better idea, please let us know how we can help. If you don't have a better idea, don't criticize the people who think they are doing the right thing.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #23 on:** March 18, 2010, 13:05 »

I could probably type a book from what I learned, but in a nutshell many of our problems are stemming from the Agency level and how they have chosen to setup their business models - so it would be harder for a regular photographer to do anything about it.

Here's what I think is the most important thing to consider:

* You can only reliably sell the things you can control.

Example: Yes, you can sell stock shots in an IP free world, but only for "X" amount of time reliably because at some point there is a competitor who rises up, and there will also be copying of products you sold off and willfully lost control over. A good example of how this can be put into action would be LookStat.com - They do NOT offer a downloadable version of their tools - it's all online. Effectively, assuming they ever sell their image tracking services, your really paying to log into their site, and then use the tools. They would have a harder and harder time trying make money off selling the program the traditional way because of copying/hacking that always happens over time. Paying for online access to tools is certainly a frontier business model that could work as Internet speeds become faster and faster. They could offer a far more expensive traditional install disc, but only 6-12 months after releasing the online access version first, for less money. Now thats the future of software releases. Imagine having access to a super computer running Photoshop or some other intense program over a super high speed web connection. It's futuristc alright... but it illustrates my point - you can only reliably sell what you can control. By the way, I do NOT consider government threats of force a good, or even moral, way to reliably control you're images. Just look around you on the web - even with the current system (government threats), intellectual products are being taken left and right and very few people are ever successfully pursued legally and punished. So CLEARLY it's a failure.

Again, I could go on and on. Lastly, I think you should start looking for a way to get more assignment work, but really think about what you are selling people on - it's your unique skills, personality, customer service, customization of an image, etc... Anyone can take a photo, so thats not enough. If you want to stay in stock, which I believe has a place in the market even if IP laws vanished, you really need to stay on top of emerging needs, markets, niches, etc...

macrosaur · « **Reply #24 on:** March 26, 2010, 07:24 »

CardMaverick,

What you wrote is the biggest BS i've read since a long time.

The diatribe about server-side vs client-side has been discussed since the stone age,
you really discovered nothing new nor you're enlighting us with shiny new ideas on
alternatives of selling stock.

The rats posting hires stock files on Flickr or zipped on Rapidshare are people that wouldn't
ever buy photos anyway so where's the real loss for us in the end ?

Our clients are the ones browsing photos on stock agencies, not the random ones on flickr or web sites,
despite it can eventually give you the odd sale from time to time.

Of you course you've full control only when selling a network service or owning your own agency
but what's your point then ? should we throw our Nikons to the dogs and join a photo-pirate ring monetized
by ads banners and affiliate links ?

There's already a branch of the black-hat spamming community doing this since a long time, spamming stolen photos to rank on google images. hard to track, hard to take down, spreaded in millions of .biz and .info domains ...

And yet, it's still nothing new so your point is moot.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia images on Flickr (Read 13618 times)

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

madelaide

cardmaverick

click_click

cardmaverick

click_click

Danicek

click_click

cathyslife

FD

cathyslife

qwerty

Kone

Kone

Danicek

Danicek

cardmaverick

YadaYadaYada

click_click

Kone

FD

cathyslife

cardmaverick

macrosaur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors