|
Search this group's discussions
|
Would be great to have apps hosted inside flickr
|
As most of you may know, that showing All-rights-reserved photos on your nice API created applications is not completely legal. Well, not legal at all, but many people still do it. Here's my shot on this:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/70983/
What would be really cool, is the way to host our applications inside flickr.com, therefore inside the same licensing zone where they were originally placed by the authors. This would reduce the number of copyright infringement complaints, and would make our developers life much easier.
I would see two different services that would be very interesting:
1. Custom, API-driven listings inside Flickr: some external scripts would place selected photos inside the application stream, same as I've done it at flickrobot.livejournal.com/profile
2. Fully blown application server for interactive applications: Perl or Python or Java, probably PHP, also MySQL would be great. The server would provide native API for quering the Flickr contents, without having to deal with XML parsing.
it will be great to hear something from Flickr staff in this regard.
Posted at 1:27PM, 25 April 2008 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
guessing from my experience:
flickr won't take the risk of letting other users build applications, that would work within their legal zone, while not having full control over them. and i can't blame them for this. copyright is complicated.
although i must say: it'd be cool.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
Lars Pohlmann edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
at least Option 1, would be really helpful.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yes, that would be nice:
the ability to generate listings/selections based on custom algorithms, that would work (in regard to the copyright) within the flickrverse.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
...but even there we'd get into all kinds of problems, as many users want to have full control over the use of their photos...
they don't have control as a matter of fact, because of the api-access, but as soon as something like this would happen officially within flickr, they would become aware of it.
that's the problem: flickr was initially meant as a tool to share photos (with everybody), but is nowadays more a tool to store photos (and maybe share with some). both approaches are legitimate, but it's not easy to bring them into consensus within one application.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
...but even there we'd get into all kinds of problems, as many users want to have full control over the use of their photos..."
They do, in fact. There's a checkbox somewhere (this thing does not interest me so I have no clue where) that allows you to exclude your photos from API-usage. So long as you don't have that box checked, you essentially give permission for your photos to be used outside of flickr but using the flickr API, thus solving your problem.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Marco Wessel "So long as you don't have that box checked, you essentially give permission for your photos to be used outside of flickr but using the flickr API,"
Sorry, no. If this box is not checked, all ARR photos are still protected by copyright law from being displayed outside Flickr.
Permission to use ARR photos must be obtained from the owner of the photos before you use them.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What would be really cool, is the way to host our applications inside flickr.com, therefore inside the same licensing zone where they were originally placed by the authors.
I doubt this would work under the structure of the current terms. The license is granted to a specific entity, not a general 'zone'. The terms clearly state that third parties do not and can not receive any sublicense from Flickr/Yahoo. Operating in from the same domain isn't the issue; if you aren't actually part of Flickr/Yahoo, you still need permission under the current terms.
And practically speaking, I don't think I could imagine an issue more likely to go absolutely nuclear than Flickr giving itself the right to sublicense content to third parties.
So long as you don't have that box checked, you essentially give permission for your photos to be used outside of flickr but using the flickr API, thus solving your problem.
People are opted in by default; there's just no way this can be reasonably construed as permission, since there's no guarantee any user is informed of this choice. They're is under no obligation to even glance at their account settings; they aren't part of the terms of service, they are entirely optional. It's a fallacy both legally and (much more importantly, to my mind) ethically to rely on this.
Plus, observe the large flaw in this approach: even the most blatantly self-serving, deliberately-infringing application would have the exact same permission as the coolest, most inventive and good-natured application. I don't think that's an environment I want to be a part of, as a developer or a user.
the ethics of the situation are pretty clear to me, like I've said elsewhere: the only thing that gives any application any value at all is the work it displays. Being scrupulous about those author's rights is the least you can possibly do in return. End-runs around those rights to make things easier for developers will only harm the community in the long run, as people take the choice Marco mentions, and opt out completely.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
well, what would be the solution then? I see the problem as follows:
1. Displaying ARR photos outside Flickr is bad.
2. Most authors don't mind being displayed outside Flickr, and many are glad to show up in some custom-selected collections. But they have no idea about CC licenses and don't change the default ARR setting.
3. Out of the photos that I collected by (now shutdown) my applications, around 7% were CC-licensed.
4. People show great interest in seeing those selected listings, because they are very much different from what you see in Explore, or in Most popular searches, or in most loosely moderated Flickr groups.
5. When browsing someone's favorites or group pool contents, you have a poor choice of either tiny icons, or dead slow slideshow.
I, as a publisher, have solved this problem for myself: I simply run those applications on a private server, where only I can see them.
It works for me, because I can program in Perl, and also I can set up a Linux web server in few minutes.
But how to bring this opportunity to the public?
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In terms of a mechanism to make selected listingst The solution I would use would be to provide an opt-in system (perhaps via Flickr's authentication mechanism, which would also provide a clean and simple opt-out as well), and build your own index of the relevant search criteria from those people that opt in. You can combine searches on that index with searches on CC photos via the API using the same terms.
If the listings provide some utility or value to photographers, you'll get people opting in. I don't think this is anywhere near as difficult as it sounds: all the random 'award' groups on Flickr show that people see plenty of value in even a modest pat on the back.
Similarly (and this is the argument I apply to Explore), given some minimum number of photos, virtually any not-quite-random selection is going to be approximately as interesting to look at as any other. Even if CC photos are only 7% of the total, that's still several hundred uploaded every minute of the day, which is a tremendous amount of variety.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
well, then these opt-in requests should also be automated through API. Then the robot would send the invitations to the authors automatically :)
The problem with CC is that most authors don't know what it is, how it works, and what it is for. They just upload photos, without caring much how they are licensed.
On the other side, some people are still afraid of complications or possible thievery if they publish under CC license.
regarding the content, there are only few dozens of really good work being uploaded every day, and 5-7% of it is a very low number.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
ssinyagin edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
... 5-7% of it is a very low number.
That only means that Flickr isn't quite the gold mine content consumers think. All in all, though, there are around 60~70 millions CC photographs with which to play; I don't think you can call that a low number. Taking into account the sheer vastness of Flickr, even a low percentage is quite a lot.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Luis, this is not exactly the point of this discussion. The point is, of the photos that are interesting to me and to my fellows only 5% are legal to show outside Flickr. I want to change this situation, but I don't see a solution yet.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Maybe flickr can offer a (paid) "developer" account (in addition to "free" & "pro")? I mean, "developer" account can host their apps inside flickr.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
Yctai :) edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Yctai: that still wouldn't change the situation with the permissions. Simply put, Flickr/Yahoo isn't able to give developers the permissions they need without changing the terms for the members, which I think they are unlikely to do.
ssinyagin: It's not a technical problem, but a social one. You aren't going to change the situation by inventing creative ways around the licensing requirements, but rather by providing people with a good reason to co-operate with you. i.e., there needs to be a tangible benefit to them for granting you the rights to use their work.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Matt, there was never a problem to make people cooperate with me. You can see this in my projects:
www.uselessart.org/
www.flickr.com/groups/quiteuseless/
www.flickr.com/groups/paperwaste/
I don't think that custom listings inside Flickr would violate the TOS. Look, Amazon does this, and they do this with commercial content.
The situation at Flickr is that people keep building their tools, like flickriver.com, and those are very good and useful for everyone. But they aren't completely legal...
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't think that custom listings inside Flickr would violate the TOS. Look, Amazon does this, and they do this with commercial content.
Well, we seem to have shifted from hosted applications to custom listings (whatever that might mean), but the point remains the same.
Users give Yahoo/Flickr "the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available." (It's section 9, part ii of the US terms of service. I think it varies slightly by location, but all are similar).
The missing part there is "sub-license". Yahoo simply doesn't have the right to give you permission to use anyone else's work, regardless of where that usage occurs.
The situation at Flickr is that people keep building their tools, like flickriver.com, and those are very good and useful for everyone. But they aren't completely legal...
Let's be clear, the only thing we really know is useful for everyone on Flickr is Flickr itself, everything else is a guess. For a quick counter-example, I don't find flickriver useful at all. Anyway, a large part of Flickr's utility is that people retain the rights to their own work, and it is up to them how they share their own work.
Like I said before: this is not a problem that Flickr can easily solve, because the important relationship is between developers and users. Give them a reason to co-operate, and people will co-operate, but the important thing is that it's their choice. Why take that away?
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I meant, custom listings would be similar to Favorites, but their content would be controlled by API. This would stay inside the EULA as far as I understand it.
of course, then a question arises, what if I create a listing "worst quality, fascist, worthless and dullest photos" and start adding others' work to it...
on the other hand, such things would be regulated by the same mechanisms as offensive comments on photos are.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
ssinyagin edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
licensing zone
There's no such thing. Please elaborate.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I meant, if these tools are inside flickr.com, and probably moderated by Flickr staff, they would fall into the same EULA as the Flickr service itself. That would mean, ARR photos would be legally displayed in such tools, under the same conditions as they are displayed in users' Favorites, groups, etc.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
ssinyagin edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
You're describing a closed system for a public API. And asking Flickr to police your copyrights.
In my opinion, if you're going to restrict the use of your pictures through a copyright, then it's your responsibility to protect those rights. Not Flickr's.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In my opinion, if you're going to restrict the use of your pictures through a copyright, then it's your responsibility to protect those rights.
The law disagrees with you. It's the responsibility of people who want to use your content to not break the law in doing so.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's the responsibility of people who want to use your content to not break the law in doing so.
It's still up to you to enforce / assert the rights *you've* applied to your content.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Maybe another solution is to "advertise" CC license, or flickr may set CC as default?
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
All rights and legal issues aside. I'd still love to see an official application registry (think userscripts.org) embedded within a flickr url somewhere. The API and flickr pages can already deliver a pseudo "about" page based on data entered when key was applied for... seems like it would be an easy step, then you could sort apps by traffic, authenticated users, etc etc. New way to explore the flickr extra-verse. Nevermind the handy version tracking, subscribing to announcements about such things would be cool per application.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
clickykbd edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
Sorry, no. If this box is not checked, all ARR photos are still protected by copyright law from being displayed outside Flickr.
My jaw actually hit the floor. Flickr is very out in the open that your public photos are welcome to be displayed outside of Flickr through RSS feeds, the API and other methods, within the rules they set. I mean, FFS, if you don't want your photos to be shown outside of Flickr, at least disallow the API. I am honestly sick & tired of people getting amazing applications shut down because they live in fear that someone, somewhere might be enjoying or *gasp* profiting from their photo in even the smallest way without pre-written permission. These same people are what pushed Flickr to allow people to opt-out of the API in the first place, but that's not good enough for them anymore, because there are a few applications they'd like to use.
Sorry, but that's far enough. I mean, when you signed up for Flickr you did sign up for this,
To do this, we want to get photos and video into and out of the system in as many ways as we can: from the web, from mobile devices, from the users' home computers and from whatever software they are using to manage their content. And we want to be able to push them out in as many ways as possible: on the Flickr website, in RSS feeds, by email, by posting to outside blogs or ways we haven't thought of yet. What else are we going to use those smart refrigerators for?
Posted 61 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Flickr API /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Flickr API discussion threads