FlickrCentral / Discuss

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Yes, the tag is "Tunisia". I've left them a "photo message".
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ghirson says:

Funny stuff. I hope they take down non CC materials.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

they're following the flickr terms of service and linking back to all photos posted.

if you don't like your work being accessed by the flickr API, which is what this site is doing, simply activate:

www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/

and they won't be using your photos any more.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

rvacapinta    says:

How is this different from what Yahoo Travel was supposedly doing - which was deemed "not ok":

www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72057594106606910/#...
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

phoneyman [deleted] says:

striatic, clearly this is a "not ok" use if the use does not abide by the "All rights reserved" copyright useage requirements. Just because an API can download images doesn't mean that all such useages are ok.

Pierre
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

I find my photos being used on spam sites like this all the time, they are set up you find certin pics with certin keywords, it really pisses me off, I even had the apiopt out and that doesnot stop it, its cause the site is reading the rss feeds i think. And all my photos clearly say that its not ok to use them without my permission also. There should be a opt out on the feeds.

this is what im talking about:
www.orlandogo.be/2006/06/florida-p-1.html

this site is not even a real site, its a site that posts pics with orlando in the keywords.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

ishotyourband    says:

or at least make it so that photos that have the "All rights reserved", not be able to be feeded
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

How is this different from what Yahoo Travel was supposedly doing - which was deemed "not ok"

stewart makes reference to full sized vs. non full sized in that comment, that could have something to do with it. i'm not sure.

this is one thing that flickr's commercial API key program is about, right? this kind of use?

opt-out seems like a reasonable reaction.

if this site isn't using a commercial API key, flickr should probably revoke it .. if they are ..

*shrugs*

opt-out. the site is using photos in a way that a user can revoke at any time.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

like i said, i have opted out and it doesnot prevent this, I think all the opt out does is hide your public photos from global searches done through the Flickr API, which means other programs that allows searches on their sites for photos, not posting feeds.

I dont see a problem with this if your photos are not all rights reserved, that would be ok.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

tinou bao    says:

if you put something on the internet, it might be used by others. that's just the fact of life...

if you're really worried about it, don't put it on the web.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

im realize that, but this seems to be a outbreaking problem that could be stopped by flickr. And especially since the sites that are doing this, well at least to my photos, are spam blogs that just post the feeds for keywords so people will go to the site and get more hits. Its kinda annoying when I do a search on the internet for myself I get like over 20 spam sites due to flickr allowing them to post feeds of copyrighted images. I really do not want to be associated with spam sites, I do not want people to think that I have something to do with these sites and allowed them to use my photos.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

ishotyourband    says:

Such as sites like this, (i just did a search for my name):
www.disneybest.be/2006/07/orlandos7_29.html
floridadiscount.be/2006/08/orlandos7.html
www.floridaflorida.be/2006/06/florida-p-1.html
www.orlandogo.be/2006/06/florida-p-1.html

and much more, not to mention the sites that are illegally using my photos for free for sites that sell concert tickets and such by doing the same thing.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

Mark Klotz    says:

"if you're really worried about it, don't put it on the web"

I'm really getting tired of people using this as an excuse to justify copyright infringement. That's like saying "if you don't want someone to steal your car, you shouldn't use one." The internet is not a lawless zone, simply because there are 'bottom-feeders' using it to rip people off. Everyone has a right to post their photos on the net and property rights over those images.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Mark Klotz edited this topic 70 months ago.

ishotyourband    says:

Amen Mark, lol.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Bob Duck    says:

@Jorge Orte Tudela: I really like the "photo message" you left on the site. Good for you!!
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Photos by Brian .com [deleted] says:

If they're linking back to your Flickr page, they're giving credit where it's due. They're also giving your photos exposure they may not have gotten before. I wouldn't let it worry me, dude... it's no big deal.

They're not claiming them as their own and they're not using them without giving credit, so they're doing everything right.

As Mark Klotz said, "if you're really worried about it, don't put it on the web."
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

@everythingshreveport : Just cause a site gives credit for the photo does not make it ok or legal to use the photo without permission, if that was the case then do you really think there would be professional photographers? There wouldnt be because all their photos would be able to be used for free as long as people gave credit.

And as for exposure, I really do not want exposure from spam sites, I do not want to be afiliated with them whatsoever.

And yes, its kind of a big deal, since its illegal to use copyrighted photos without permission.

Its not that I dont realize that if its online its going to happen, I do realize that it happens. But if there is something that can be done about it to prevent it, flickr should add that option. And the only reason my photos are on these spam sights is because I use flickr and they allow thier feeds to be picked up by spam sites.

I mean why would flickr bother with having the type of license listed if it does not matter to them. If my photos were cc this would be fine i guess, but they are not
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

Photos by Brian .com [deleted] says:

^ It's not a bog deal. They linked back to his site and gave him credit. Get over it already.

Posting one's images without giving credit is wrong, but how can you possibly say that posting photos with the proper credit given is wrong? Are they making money off the photos? No. Are they claiming them as their own? No. Are they publicly bashing them? No. They are giving them added exposure, and if they weren't meant to be seen by the public then they shouldn't have been posted online.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

tinou bao    says:

mark,

where did I justify copyright infringement? all i'm saying is if you put a photo on the web, count on somebody using it. is it wrong? of course it is.

but there's virtually nothing flickr can do about it. anybody, from your mom, to a spam site, can come to flickr, right click, save as, and copy your photo.

think about it this way...you go to the corner of Market Street and 5th Street and stand there wearing a t-shirt with this cool design you made. The t-shirt says "deign copyrighted"

later, you find out some guy has copied your t-shirt design....and you go and complain to the city of San Francisco, about how they let the guy steal your design...

flickr, like the city of SF, isn't responsible. both are are public places. don't go into public places....
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

@everythingshreveport:
uhm, copyright infringement is a big deal, maybe not to you since you do not make a living off of photography.

How can i say its wrong to post my images without permission, even if they gave me credit? Look up Copyright Infringement, thats how I can say its wrong lol, Hell why would magazines bother to pay millions for Angelina Jolies baby photos if they could use them for free if they just gave the photographer credit?

Are they publicly bashing my photography?
By them posting them on a spam site, yes I would consider that publicly bashing my photography. I told you I dont want to be afiliated with spam sites or do i need or want exposure from them.

Are they making any money off of them?
Yes the site that is doing the same thing selling concert tickets is making money, the only person that is not making money is me, which I normally charge to license to use my photos.

Why am I on flickr? Because I enjoy talking to other photographers and getting advice and critiques on my work by the general flickr public, That is why they I post online on flickr, I do not post to contribute to spam sites and sites using my images illegally lol.

To Mark, there is something flickr can do about it, they can add a option to not allow sites to use feeds of copyrighted works, Then it would not be flickrs fault if it happens. It would be people that right click, and thats another story.

Think about it this way, If the city owns the factory that makes copys of that tshirt design, and they willingly know that it is someone elses design but makes it anyways, whos fault is it? see what i am saying?

Now if a site just right clicks my images like you said that is a another story, I would have to send a dcma form to their servers indivually, which I am more than willing to do, but why bother with doing that to all these sites that suck off of feeds when flickr can cut them off eaisily?
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

tinou bao    says:

not sure eactly what you're proposing flickr do...all copyrighted works would not be in the feed? if so then most folks who aren't stealing your work won't be able to see your work via feeds? are you saying anybody who wants to see copyrighted work would have to go to flickr directly, not via a feed?

even if this is the case, it would take a guy about day to write something to crawl flickr to get all copyrighted photos without the feed...

basically, if your stuff is on a public site, rest assure that there is a pretty easy way to get it and use it, and there's nothing flickr or any other site can do about it.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

stu_spivack    says:

Thumbnails are copyright infringement? When did that happen?
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

Yup Excactly, Because I dont think that anyone that I know except those sites look at my feeds, Im not asking flickr to cut off feeds for every one, just maybe add a option so that you can choose whether or not to have a feed or not or a option to not allow copyrighted work to be feeded.

If you dont mind then you wouldnt have to click the option.

are you saying anybody who wants to see copyrighted work would have to go to flickr directly, not via a feed?

yup, thats what I am saying, have that as a option, I use flickr to network with other flickr users, I would rather have everything that I post on flickr to stay on flickr and only be searchable on flickr. That is a reason I clicked the API opt out.

even if thats the case that someone made something to crawl flickr, it would be out of flickrs hands, but right now its in flickrs hands and they can do something about it. And still flickr could block certin sites that crawl if they wanted to.

and like im saying for the third time, I realize that if you post on the internet that there is always a way to copy it, you do not have to repeat that every time, im just saying that there are things fliker CAN do about it and there are things that other sites can do about it to prevent it, and I am suggesting them. lol.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

yes, thumbnails are a copyright infringement.

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. "
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

yes, thumbnails are a copyright infringement.

so yahoo image search is violating the copyright of every person whose image they display after a search?

in many contexts, linked thumbnails back to the original source are considered fair use .. including in image search engines.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

rvacapinta    says:

not sure eactly what you're proposing flickr do...all copyrighted works would not be in the feed?

This is a boring derailment. This issue is about:

1) What other sites have a right to do based on existing rights and the Flickr terms of service. This one is a legal issue not a technical issue.

2) What flickr can/cannot do to facilitate this. Yes, yes I know anyone can right-click and upload and all that jazz but flickr can (and has) revoked API keys from sites that are violating the terms of use.

Sure that may not stop them, but at the very least Flickr can make it more difficult thus at least limiting the "unintentional" violations - that is, those people who are doing it because they know no better. That will not stop the "determined" user but nobody thinks thats the case here.

We all understand you cant stop the determined user. Do you have a further point to make?
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

yahoo image search is just that, a image search that links images that are on websites, it doesnot post your images onto websites, and there is a way to opt out of that
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

yahoo image search IS a website.

and yes, you can opt out of yahoo image search via norobots.txt, but you can opt out of tag feeds by not tagging. or from the api via opt out.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 70 months ago.

striatic says:

i think the best option is for flickr to have a more nuanced opt-out system.

allow people to opt out of both feeds and api. or the one or the other.

allow people also to opt out of any and all searches within the flickr interface as well.

then, developers using the api and feeds can go ahead, knowing that people who don't want to be included have had all kinds of options for excusing themselves.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

I never said it was not a website. I said it does not post your images on to a websites, like the sites I listed do. and like i said there is a way to opt out of it. unlike the sites that post the feeds. but if there was a way to opt out of feeds then it would be cool.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

yeah but if you dont tag then people on flickr wont beable to find your images as well lol. but yea, i agree about your opt-out system
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Brenda Anderson    says:

ishotyourband,

Those websites you pointed to are blogs (using blogger software). I doubt they are using feeds to do that... I don't think blogger has the ability to do that. Someone is blogging your photos. If you think that they are violating your copyright, you should complain to their host.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 70 months ago.

ishotyourband    says:

uhm, they are using feeds, if they were not using feeds why would they post the info on my photo that says "This photo is copyrighted and may not be used in any way without permission. "
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

if they were not using feeds why would they post the info on my photo that says "This photo is copyrighted and may not be used in any way without permission. "

too lazy to remove it, probably.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Stewart    says:

ishotyourband: I'm sorry about the annoyance. We'll look into this site and take appropriate action.

Also, I think opting out of API searches also removes your photos from tag-based ("search-y") feeds.

väcäpinta: "How is this different from what Yahoo Travel was supposedly doing - which was deemed "not ok"."

You said something like that a few days ago too, but it's not true. Please knock it off. (Or, read the rest of the thread you're linking to?)

Yahoo! Travel was and is letting people submit photos for inclusion, and choosing photos with CC licenses. That is plainly ok.

Any commercial site pulling in photos from feeds or via the API without respect to license is not ok.

The crucial thing here is "pulling in photos". What does it mean? Using very small thumbails as a link to the photo's canonical home on the web is, generally speaking ok: a thumbnail is an acceptable way to link to a photo like a headline or pullquote or summary is a good way to link to a written work.

Pulling in a screen sized or large image, even if there is a link back to the original page on Flickr, is generally not going to be ok and could certainly be a copyright violation, depending on the context.

(In this case, the site is using the most ambiguous size we have, so it's hard to say that it is plainly a thumbnail or plainly using the image.)

But, no business has a right to use Flickr's servers/bandwidth for any reason. That's silly.

And it is not very respectful to the people who are willing to share their photos with the world to go and use them to decorate your business's site. I don't lose any sleep over preventing this from happening.

striatic: "this is one thing that flickr's commercial API key program is about, right? this kind of use?"

Nope. We are not now and will never be in the business fo selling people's personal photographs without their permission. For examples of what the commercial API is "for", see integration with various photo management apps, QOOP, Zazzle, FD's tool, ShoZu, etc.

"i think the best option is for flickr to have a more nuanced opt-out system."

I don't think so. Some uses are going to be ok, and some aren't. There is never going to be a programmatic way to determine that. Even if there was a perfectly-nuanced system, developers could do stuff with the API that wouldn't be acceptable.

Aside: We're working on better guidelines, but we'd rather have the full-featured anything-is-possible API and pay the price of thinking about it and dealing with issues as they arise than limiting the functionality.

[edited to fix formatting gone awry]
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Stewart (a group admin) edited this topic 70 months ago.

Pixel Wrangler says:

striatic wrote:

i think the best option is for flickr to have a more nuanced opt-out system.
allow people to opt out of both feeds and api. or the one or the other.
allow people also to opt out of any and all searches within the flickr interface as well.
then, developers using the api and feeds can go ahead, knowing that people who don't want to be included have had all kinds of options for excusing themselves.

.
In my experience opt-out is anti-user. Opt-out, as suggested here, requires the user/member to take a step to protect themselves from giving up a level of protection that they are, IMNHO, entitled to without question.

The benefit of opt-outgoes to the developer, the blogger, the thief.

Additionally, opt-out presumes all members will (1) receive the necessary information about how to opt-out; and (2) it presumes members will understand both what is at stake -- as well as understand, procedurally, what steps they must take in order to opt-out.

One need only glance at the Flickr Help group to gain an understanding of the difficulties new (and not-so-new) members have understanding how to use Flickr -- usage that may be simple to others... isn't that way to all.

Flickr is a member based, social, sharing community. In my view, Members (and Beginners) Come First... which is why I cheerlead for opt-IN.
.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

kingofthenerds    says:

Thumbnails are copyright infringement? When did that happen?

Since always. Thumbnails MAY be fair use (or fair dealing or whatever the local juristicion calls it) but just displaying a reduced size image does not automagically subvert copyrights, you need to do other things in order to qualify.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

purplewon2000    says:

Thanks, Jorge. I looked up my name and found 1 picture in beenews.net and two more at tagcentral.net. I fired off an email to tag central, but couldn't find anyone who was the webmaster (or willing to admit they were online) at beenews.net. I don't even know any bee keepers. The closest I could come was people who are afraid of being stung. I found the opt out service (too late for three of my pictures, at any rate). I don't do photography as a professional (as any pro who's seen my photography will tell you), but as a hobby. I don't even like posting familly photos online because of this, and now I'm even more weary about posting online. I appreciate you saying something about this, or I would've never known about this.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

all of the sites i listed are sucking feeds just like the orignal poster of this thread, notice how he changed his desciption to say
"This photo is copyrighted and is being used by www.afrika-start.de without my permission."
and the site now says that, the same goes for me

and i have had the opt out on, and it still happens to my newer photos
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
ishotyourband edited this topic 70 months ago.

Mark Klotz    says:

As Mark Klotz said, "if you're really worried about it, don't put it on the web."

RBerteig    says:

Popping back to the original site mentioned, a quick glance reveals a kind of fraud that shows clearly even though I don't read German either. They write "... posted a photo:" above each photo linked. To my mind, that is worse than just linking to random photos. They have implied that the photographers endorse this usage and put the photos on afrika-start.de themselves. It would be much more honest if they put "... took this lovely photo which we are borrowing without their knowledge or permission" instead ;-)

Any site that misuses verbs like "posted" like this has demonstrated intent to defraud, and probably can't be trusted in any of their actual content either.

I like the replaced photo, Jorge ;-).
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

iansand    says:

At least they understand something about copyright

© 2005-2006 Afrika-Start.de - Alle Rechte vorbehalten

afrika_start says:

Hello, afrika-start here. Sorry for my simple english. We used the freely available feeds (http://www.flickr.com/services/feeds/). We placed "powered by flickr" on top, a thumbnail link from flickr, the owners name of the picture, the link to the image at flickr and no copy of the high or low resolution picture.

We thought it was a big "ad" for your pictures and flickr. if we want to steal your photos we would take the hires version, put our logo on it and take money for downloading.

Obviously you don't see it in that way and thats because we take the page down. Sorry for any inconvenience!

Tony
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
afrika_start edited this topic 70 months ago.

Stewart    says:

"Any site that misuses verbs like "posted" like this has demonstrated intent to defraud, and probably can't be trusted in any of their actual content either."

Actually, that text occurs in the RSS feed they are including, so it is all automated. No intent should be inferred from it.

Pixel Wrangler I disagree. The "thief" doesn't care about opting-in or opting-out of the API, and most people like that developers are making cool stuff and people are blogging their photos.

(Also, saying "the developer, the blogger, the thief" strongly implies that these are all of a kind, which is just wrong. If *any* well-intentioned respectful pointing to your photos is something you feel is morally wrong, then it's possible that Flickr is not the right service for you.)
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

@ RBerteig:

Please try out the feeds at www.flickr.com/services/feeds/ and see where the word "posted" comes from.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Stewart    says:

Tony / afrika_start: thanks for doing that and thanks for writing in.

I think some people probably saw things your way and liked that their photos appeared on your site, and others obviously didn't.

At some point soon we'll have an easier way of doing what you're trying to do while ensuring that you're only using photos from people who want their photos used.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

Thanks Stewart. Yes, an option "CC" at the feeds would be great.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

I think there is a big diffrence in posting a text link(pointing) to your copyrighted photo on flickr, and posting a thumbnail of copyrighted material and then linking it.

this is why there should be a way for flickr users to opt out of flickrs feeds to prevent website creators that think its a good idea to post a feed on their site with certin keywords that have to do with their site so that they can get free images to use on their site that are related, which are more than likely copyrighted.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

ishotyourband    says:

yeah CC feeds would be the way to go also
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

I don't think so. Some uses are going to be ok, and some aren't. There is never going to be a programmatic way to determine that. Even if there was a perfectly-nuanced system, developers could do stuff with the API that wouldn't be acceptable.

i'm not saying that you need a more nuanced system in order to prevent developers from breaking the law, i'm suggesting such a system to help avoid outside apps from offending any sensibilities.

i mean, a lot of flickr users aren't even cool with the fair-use of their images. flickr is also set up so that users only have to participate to the level they are comfortable.

if someone is uncomfortable with their photos being available via feeds, why not allow them to opt-out? fair-use and copyright aside entirely.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jayel Aheram    says:

Yes, I agree. I would not mind the traffic being directed to my CC-licensed digital photos. I think it is a wonderful idea to specifically direct traffic that would otherwise go to ungrateful All Rights Reserved photopages to grateful CC-licensed ones.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

Using very small thumbails as a link to the photo's canonical home on the web is, generally speaking ok

in a legal sense, yes .. but obviously it isn't "okay" for users with a particular interpretation of copyright. it gives them a "no" feeling.

wouldn't it be politically expeditious to allow users to curtail all automated photo use outside of flickr, short of scraping?

and by "politically expeditious", i mean "no feeling avoiding-ish"
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 70 months ago.

Stewart    says:

I can't remember now if the opt-out was supposed to apply to feeds or not (I thought it did, but there may be some reason it doesn't ...can't tell if it is a bug or a feature).

In any case, CC-only feeds are coming, so that helps.

Striatic - I'm not sure ... across Flickr, there are a virtual infinite number of features that we don't have now, and plenty of things that people want, and some of them won't ever happen. Same thing applies to these issues. I think we have most of the flexibility we need in the system now and I think the better investment of time would be in education, policy, guidelines, design, etc., to help sort it all out for users and developers.

There'll still be some misunderstandings and issues and conflicts and stuff, but some amount of that is just unavoidable no matter what.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

striatic says:

There'll still be some misunderstandings and issues and conflicts and stuff, but some amount of that is just unavoidable no matter what.

fair enough.

I think the better investment of time would be in education, policy, guidelines, design, etc., to help sort it all out for users and developers.

true.

I thought it did, but there may be some reason it doesn't ...can't tell if it is a bug or a feature

so did i. i think api calls and feeds are sufficiently similar that the opt-out should include both. ideally, users should be able to opt in or out of either one separately but if you don't have the time to implement such a thing, you don't have the time. no point in arguing that.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Helen Morgan    says:

What the folks at Blogswana did (a blog about Botswana, AIDS and blogging) was leave messages on pictures of Botswana that they liked in Flickr and invited you to tag your photos blogswana if you were happy for them to be included in their website. I thought this was excellent because I could choose which of my images were appropriate to what they were trying to achieve and they had made me of aware of their excellent project.

Had they not done this I wouldn't have been at all bothered if they used any of my photographs tagged Botswana. As long as they meet the terms of service and link back to images in Flickr, they're more than welcome. I love these uses of Flickr. It has been well done by the National Library of Australia through their PictureAustralia initiative.

There is much to be gained from sharing!
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

@ Jorge Orte Tudela:

I've contacted and asked them to stop using my photos, I'm waiting for an answer.

No, you're not. You mail to us, starting public discussions, creating "photo messages", bashing afrika-start in some of your picture descriptions.

There were 10 thumbnails on our page that basically says: Hello, you are at the tunesia section of afrika-start and there are some beautiful pictures on flickr from "Jorge Orte Tudela" ... click on it and see more of it or leave a nice comment etc. There was NO other use. Realized with a freely available feed from flickr.

Placing stealing banners on our page and talking something about "uploading" is wrong! I think there are much better ways to communicate.


Tony
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
afrika_start edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

I have no problem with educational institutions, non-profit organizations or particular users making use of my photos. But I don't like them being used by commercial sites without permission.

Striatic, fair use is not specifically set out in the Copyright Act, is a legal defense, according to Copyright's FAQs:

http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/viewPage?pageCode=cr11-n

Is a use is a "fair use" or not is not something you, me or them can decide, it may be solved by a judge.

The photos in the web were no "very small", it was a good size for a web.

I didn't know about the "API output" option, however I don't want to activate it, since some of my photos are in webs that uses the flickr API, with my permission.

tinou bao,

if you put something on the internet, it might be used by others. that's just the fact of life...

if you're really worried about it, don't put it on the web

If you live you can be killed, That's just the fact of life...

If you're really worried about it, don't live.

Stewart, thanks for your attention.

Afrika-start, thanks for removing the photos so quickly. For me, everything is solved .
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

afrika-start, I uploaded to flickr just one banner that said "afrika-start is using flickr's copyrighted photos without permission" with the tag "Tunisia". Just one, and what it said was true. Since you have removed the photos I have removed the banner.

I've never talked about uploading.

Technically I haven't put anything in your web, you did it.

The use of my, and others photos in you web is adding a value to your service, that can be legally interpreted as a economic profit, at least according with spanish laws, I don't know about international laws.

There're better ways to communicate that using photos without asking for permission.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Yolise    says:

Jorge, which websites use the API that you've given permission to, out of interest? For every one you know about, there could be 10 others that you don't. Wouldn't it be easier to opt out and let the ones that want to use your images contact you directly and come to an agreement?
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

No, you're not. You mail to us, starting public discussions, creating "photo messages", bashing afrika-start in some of your picture descriptions.

Yes, I was. I mailed you and then I was waing for you answer.

As you have removed the photos I have removed the message and changed the banner.

I started public discussions as well. If you feel I have accused you about something that's no true, take legal actions against me. You're in you right, but you're wrong. However, if you do that, I'll take legal actions against you and I'll request economic compensations by illegal use of copyrighted material.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Yolise, you're right, it will be easier, but law is supossed to protect copyrighted material, so I should not have to stop using a service I want because some people is breaking the law.

www.nuevalente.net/ph/paises.php
www.nuevalente.net/ph/paises.php?pais=tn

This web is related to the "Patrimonio de la Humanidad" group, and it shows UNESCO World Heritage sites photos. I want my pictures to be showed there.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

Afrika-start, thanks for removing the photos so quickly. For me, everything is solved.

No one talks about "legal actions". In don`t understand your problem. Sorry.

What do you think about google image? Obviously thats not a problem for you. They are commercial, we are not.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Yolise    says:

Jorge, the law is different in every country. You should be aware that there are countries out there that do not recognise international copyright and you would have no recourse if a website based in that country used an image without your permission.

The law also can not protect you against uses you don't know about.

[edit: I just looked at that site you linked to. Seems there could be another way to pull images from their own group. I don't know enough about how the API works, but it seems that using Flickr groups (the group feed?) would be a way to allow people to opt-in to specific sites whilst opting out of the API searches?]
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

About google image I think they provides me a valuable service since I can search, someway, wich of my photos are being used in webs. So, no, It's not a problem for me. Wich ussages of my photos should or shouldn't be a problem for me is my business, not yours.

I didn't know you're not commercial, as I've said, I don't undestand german and the web seemed to be commercial to me. Anyway, you must ask for permission for using copyrighted photos, I you had asked for it, and you're not commercial, I'll have allowed you to use my photos. But you didn't. The same way if someone ask me for a cigarrete in the street, I'll give him one, but if they just take it without asking I'll get angry.

Yolise, not sure if that web use de API, I guess it does... I'll ask.

Germany, where the web is hosted, recognises international copyright. If a chinese web is using my photos without permission I can't do nothing, I know.

It can be a nosense for some people but... I don't care about illegal uses I don't know about. In Spain there's a said "Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente" (Eyes that don't see, heart that don't feel).
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

Wich ussages of my photos should or shouldn't be a problem for me is my business, not yours.

??? You started a public discussion and i asked you about your opinion. Sorry for that!

Jorge: It's a private project from two people to push a more positive image of africa in germany. The only moments when africa appear in the german news are wars, genocide, shootings etc..

The main problem is that we can't select pictures to appear on our site or ask for permission. We used a feature from flickr called "To get a feed of public photos, use the following url...". Now its clear that they are not so "public" and some people don't want to appear on those feeds and think someone ist "stealing" their thumbnails. Until there are more options or parameters i think there should be a warning on www.flickr.com/services/feeds/ to prevent those problems in the future.


Tony
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
afrika_start edited this topic 70 months ago.

Yolise    says:

Actually, China subscribes to the Berne Convention, although I expect you'd have little joy enforcing your copyright there.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

iansand    says:

China seems to be making a bit of an effort to tidy up its IP act. It has a long way to go.

I wonder if there is a place for a simple message for people who want to use flickr in ways like this? Something like

Regardless of the law many people on flickr are sensitive about how their photos are used, particularly if that use has a commercial smell about it. flickr is a community, and part of being a member of that community is respecting the views of other people in the community. That is something beyond what the law may state. It might be a good plan to float your idea in flickr Central, or some other group, and respect the feedback you get.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Tony (afrika-start),

Here you can find lots of Tunisia tagged photos with a Creative Commons Attribution License

www.flickr.com/search/?l=4&w=all&q=tunisia&m=...

You can search tunisia tagged photos with other CC licenses from here:

www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

No feeds are available, but it may help you. You can also open a group for people who wants their pictures being published in your web, groups have feeds. Anyway you should ask flickr staff about it.

Flickr's "public" photos means that the photo is available for anyone to see it via flickr. A "private" photo can't be seen by anyone, just contacts, friends, family and yourself.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

widderson old school + still censored says:

... They are commercial, we are not. ...

afrika-start, do you mind if I laugh?
German is my mother tongue, and just before I have strolled around your site. Even this passage:

Afrika-Start.de ist ein unabhängiger (independent) Anbieter mit einem überzeugendem Angebot an Produkten und Diensten rund um Information, Kommunikation, Nachrichten und Meinungsaustausch. Eine Weiterentwicklung des Angebotes bezüglich Tourismus, Reise, Lifestyle und weitere Services ist in Vorbereitung.

is no prove that this is a non-commercial website.
Actually, a site full of ads and various services leading to commercial enterprises is hardly qualified to be called non-commercial.
Also the impressum has no hint like "gemeinnützig" (charitable/non-profit) or something similar, just "Betreiber" (carrier/operator). Well, that's just not enough.

Maybe you have proper intentions about Africa, but if Google would lead me to your site when searching "independent info about Africa" I would click off immediately. It is also my impression, that there is not a single sentence in English or French, so no native African without German language skills has a chance to check the content.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

afrika_start says:

It's a completely private project with a 0 budget and adresses - as i sad - the german public. The ads are financing the servers like on many other private websites. And there is no time/money for other languages. That's why we call it .de .. not .net or .com.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Then you're making money with the ads. You can't use Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses in your web.

You're making money, and this is a fact, it doesn't matter what do you do with it. It's a commercial trasanction.

A spanish consumer association was legally declared as "business" by doing that in his newspaper and web page. I know because I'm currently working in the consumer association that acussed them. Although german laws may be different.

So, by the use of the photos you're adding a value to a web that uses ads to make money. So, you're making a commercial use of the photos.

I you're what you say (and now I'm not acussing you, I can't know for sure what you are), it's ethically ok for me, but ethics and laws are different things.

By the way, using an automated system for including photos in your web can be dangerous for you. What if someone upload a nude photo of a 8 years child and tag it as "Tunisia"? Or... I don't know... maybe a dog's shit photo...
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

striatic says:

Then you're making money with the ads. You can't use Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses in your web.

if you read the CC non-commercial license you'll read that there needs to be should be a profit made in order to qualify as commercial use.

*sigh*

from creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/legalcode

"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

[emphasis mine]

first, "commercial advantage" is different from "revenue".

one implies profit, the other does not.

secondly, the license suggests that if monetary compensation is a secondary concern then the use may not be commercial.

you're reading the definition of 'commercial' too broadly.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

If was that way in previous versions of the license? I read it time ago, previous versions, and I'm almost sure that "primarily" didn't appeared then.

But both implies profit, and economic incoming is a profit.

However, as I said before in other case, if an use of a photo is "primarily" directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation is something that may say a judge, as is very subjective matter and there're no particular cases defined. And it may depend of particular country's law, as far as I know, in USA is something called "editorial use", in Spain that doesn't exist, any "editorial use" is considered "commercial use".
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

iansand    says:

striatic

Where do you get "profit" from

primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

This particular case will be considered as "commercial" in Spain according to spanish laws, my "commercial" interpretation is as broad as the spanish judges ones. There are lots of precedents. Maybe in other countries it will work in a different way.

Even more, in Spain this case could be resolved by Copyright Act and/or spanish Intellectual Property Law, which is different.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

matt    says:

Jorge Orte Tudela: Striatic, fair use is not specifically set out in the Copyright Act, is a legal defense, according to Copyright's FAQs:

www.copyright.com/ccc/do/viewPage?pageCode=cr11-n

This is not true. "Fair use" is defined in section 107 of US copyright law: www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 It has been further reinforced and defined by a vast body of case law in the US, and the guidelines are meant to be interpreted by any reasonable person. If a case goes to court, then only the judge can make a fair use determination, but that's simply a truism of any point of contention in a court case - it's the function of the judge to make exactly that type of decision.

Similar definitions ("fair dealing") exist in both Canada and the UK, and I would be surprised beyond words if any jurisdiction had a copyright law that lacked a similar definition.

I will point out that the copyright FAQs you point to are provided by an independent organisation, and judging by their content and business, one with a distinct bias against fair use: "Copyright Clearance Center is the world's premier provider of copyright licensing and compliance solutions for the information content industry". The FAQs provided on www.copyright.gov/ are much more generally useful.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
matt edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

I guess that what this FAQs where trying to say is than what is and what is not a "fair use" is not clearly defined. As you have said, there are only guidelines, and as both me and you have said, it must be interpreted by a reasonable person (a judge, for example).

Basically we're saying the same.

Copyright act is the same for all countries, but Intellectual Property Laws are different, and the spanish one have different exclusions, clearly defined.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

the family cat    says:

There's much will always remain unanswered re copyright.Eg a person attempting to make money on EBay scans in the sleeve of a CD or record,you capture it and show it on your photostream.Who then can object.Making an icon has the options of "find the photo Flickr" or "find the photo on the web". Whether scanning in your own CD sleeve comes under copyright is more than a grey area
Many Comments include the added info of "Blogged" which is like saying its favorited as anyone who saw the Flickr blog sites will realise that they have a Comment box in which you can add your name as the source. Its just a plug for your picture but some have emailed me for permission to show stuff and I see no objectiont.
The only pix I would not give a permission on are those I got permitted to use.Virtually anyone will give permissions providing a link is placed on the page for their site.All you do is type the URL and untag it so its hyperlinked.
Firms like the Greaves & Thomas Globe Makers would give permission especially if you buy one of their globes so under miy picture of the Alice In Wonderland Globe is a link to their site which is full of thematic globes beautifully photographed
Its also very unlikely anyone would object if a direct link is placed on your picture,of their interface captured from a Photo Editor.
Those who actually pay to be members of the CP are the ones who'd make the most trouble-for which you can't blame them but Karls Crinie Castle are quite reasonable about it-though they'd do their nut if they had any idea of people on here not only using their pictures but claiming the images are of members of their own family!!!
As it says on their site "retribution will be sought for unauthorized use of..." as they are in business for selling CD ROMS and are no doubt aware the said CD ROMS can be cloned.
Car boots are full of this cloned stuff and no one seems to have the power to shut them down like they once could with bootleggers of vinyl.
And another oddity which pute you in the position of being the only person on the Web with certain photos.For example I took digicams of about 90 views of ballerina Lauren Grant from a film called The Hard Nut then cropped them and cleaned them up as a TV image is hardly high resolution.So if anybody else used photos of Lauren Grant I know just where they'd be from as I have the same ones on other Photo Sharing sites-photos which don't technically exist!.
The only "copyright" I would have here is the fact that I held the camera to create photos of a lady whose only web presence before was a mention on a general ballet site.
But for all I know my Photobox album of her pictures could have been spidered by Google and if you spend too long even LOOKING for stuff like this the day's gone!
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Yolise    says:

Car boots are full of this cloned stuff and no one seems to have the power to shut them down like they once could with bootleggers of vinyl.

Sure they do: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4795633.stm
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

iansand    says:

A breach of copyrighjt remains a breach, regardless of whether it is enforced.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

matt    says:

As you have said, there are only guidelines, and as both me and you have said, it must be interpreted by a reasonable person (a judge, for example).

Basically we're saying the same.

No, because I'm saying that I'm a reasonable person. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt on that account. The only time a judge matters in this equation is when two people disagree enough that they take it to court.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Matt, none of us needs to be reasonable to say if something is a fair use or not, we're free to have our opinions a express it, but in this context, we are talking about legal issues. And my or your opinion doesn't not count too much if we're talking about if an use of a photo is, legally, a fair use or not.

I think that my perspective was clear.

Anyway, I'm a reasonable person, too. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, but you don't need to doubt it.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

RubyMae    says:

And then the Judge will just laugh at all you self appointed lawyers.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Well, is not only my opinion. I work with 12 lawyers and their opinion is the same as mine. BTW, I've won three judgements without lawyer (it's possible in Spain to deffend yourself) and stopped a law. I know something about laws. Not enough for being a lawyer, but enough for knowing what I'm talking about.

You know, laws are easier than quantum mechanichs.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

markcbrennan    says:

There is an interesting case regarding this type of copyright infringement called: Religious TechCenter v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.

In one of the footnotes of that case, "[Browsing] is the functional equivalent of reading, which does not implicate the copyright laws and may be done by anyone in a library without the permission of the copyright owner."

Essentially, what this says is that simply viewing an image on a webpage does not infringe on the reproduction right, because it would be like going to the library and reading a book that had your picture in it.

There have been similar lawsuits against Google regarding its image search and the thumbnails it shows. In the past, it has been ruled that an actual dissemination of copies (and thus violation of copyright) occurs when a file is transferred from one computer to another. It was determined that Google's use of thumbnails, and links back to webpages, was not infringing on copyright, because the actual dissemination only occurs when the original, full-size image is transferred. By simply framing and in-line linking to third-party websites, Google did not "distribute" infringing copies of copyright material.

This is a pretty new and developing issue in case law, and I'm sure there are some cases that go against the cases I cited above, but it seems to me that regardless of how many advertisements were on the screen, unless afrika_start was actually selling prints of peoples' work, without permission, there was no violation of copyright.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

This is a very weak argument, but it may work with some judges.

Assuming hipotetically that this is not a case of copyright violation, it may be, depending of national laws, a case of intellectual property violation.

And, a court's judge may say it's not a violation, and another court's judge the opposite. In Spain (I'm always talking about spanish laws because I don't know about international laws) this can be solved by civilian and penal courts at the same time. And if a judge declare the acussed as inocent you can, sometimes, make a resort (is that the word in english? when someone doesn't agree with the judge's dictamen and wants to continue the legal process in another court).
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

the family cat    says:

They shut down a factory in Blackpool for manufacturing bbootleg videos but this clone junk is here year after year
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Another funny case... according with spanish intellectual property law, you can make a copy of intellectual work (such as movies, books, music, photos, etc...) for private use. But not software.

For example, I can go to the videoclub, make a DVD copy of the latest Hollywood movie, and it's legal. As far as I don't earn money with it or use it in public, it's legal for private use.

Spanish government is allowing special taxes in CD-R and DVD-R beacause of this law.

A Barcelona's boy was acussed, he had more than a thousand copies of Playstation games, just one of each game. He was declared inocent.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

markcbrennan    says:

Those are two court decisions that I cited (in the U.S.). In both of those cases, the plaintiffs lost, and it was determined that the defendants were not in violation of copyright. I would encourage you to look both of them up to get all of the details, as I only have limited knowledge of intellectual property law, and am not a professional lawyer. (The second case, the one against Google, was filed by Perfect 10, and I think the case name was P10 v. Google)

Lawyers successfully won cases, and established legal precedents, with these "very weak" arguments.

One important thing to keep in mind here is that copyright isn't absolute. Sections 107-121 of the Copyright Act are dedicated entirely to limitations of copyright. Copyrights are nebulous things, and historically, it has been hard to prove when violations have occurred. Another important thing to keep in mind (and, I see has already been brought up) is that there is no such thing as an international copyright. The laws in Spain, Germany, and the United States are all similar, but not entirely the same.

I also think that people are too quick to dismiss the "don't put your pictures on the internet" argument. I'm not saying that by uploading your pictures to the internet that you lose your copyright. By uploading your photos to Flickr, you are, in a sense, publishing them. A webpage that thumbnails your photo, with a link back to Flickr, where it was originally published, is no different than a journal paper that quotes a book and then provides proper citations.

According to afrika_start these pictures were obtained from Flickr, by using a feed of public photographs. Because afrika_start obtained "published" photos from that public feed, and provided the proper citations and links back to the original file, no "actual dissemination" took place. If someone clicked on one of those photos, and was taken to your Flickr page, according to the court's interpretation of the law, the "actual dissemination" was between Flickr and whoever clicked on your link, not afrika_start. Presumably, if you upload your photos to a public area of Flickr, you are authorizing Flickr to disseminate your photos to people that click on them.

(Edit: Removed a paragraph relating to the ReligiousTech Center case)
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
markcbrennan edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

Your considering, in your arguments, the image as an informatic file, not as an intellectual work. They may be linking back to the original file, but they were showing my work in their web. An intellectual work is more than a material thing, is also a "conceptual thing". If it couldn't be treated like this, I could copy a book, in different paper, and it will be another thing.

Uploading a photo to internet may be considered publishing, but I own the right for publishing my photos, and others don't. Publishing my photos myself don't allow anyone to do the same.

Quotes of books (asuming that the rights are still valid) in journal papers are regulated in Spain, you can't quote more than two lines without permission.

When I upload a photo to flickr I'm authorizing flickr to show my photos in the Flickr web, not in other webs.

I don't know if it has been historically difficult to prove copyright violations, but I know two photographers that have won judgements because their photos were published in a web without their permission.

Browsing photos in a search engine like google is very different to show photos in a web like africa-start. Tunisian photos are not related to google's business, but are related with africa-start activities. That can make a point when argumenting in a judgement.

The court interpretation you mention is very weak (honestly, in Spain an argument like that is not going to work, it may work in other countries, but spanish judges are more serious than that), there wil be no interaction between flickr and the one who clicks in my image since this interaction has been provided by africa-start webmaster. So they have something to do in the interaction.

I thought that Copyright was international, I was wrong. The spanish equivalent to Copyright Act is the Intellectual Property Law I talked about. I'll be looking for a german's law translation (although I'm not going to take legal actions since they have stopped publishing my photos), so we'll be sure about the laws that affects this situation.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Violentz    says:

Marccbrennan, the right of thumbnailing and linking back to its original source on the web isn't absolute though. For instance, a travel agency can't join Flickr and start using images on their commercial website to show pictures of the countries they can send sell you tickets to. You aren't suppose to use the thumbnails to decorate your commerical website as a substitute for a stock photo . The intent of the laws you are describing, in my understanding of it, is for cataloging....which is what Google is doing, and the actual thumbnail is suppose to be small, which I don't know if actual size has ever been defined. I have seen MANY of my images blogged on other websites where the "thumbnail" is the actual size as my photo appears on Flickr.....the largest display size on my photostream. I don't think that can be considered a "thumbnail". I personally don't mind my public images being blogged at that size, but I don't know if the blogger who is using that size is doing so legally under the laws you are siting in your post. In fact, I don't know if "Blog This" is even giving them that option to blog the large size photo.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Violentz edited this topic 70 months ago.

fotogail    says:

interesting citations.

i wanted to make a couple of practical suggestions (stewart and others in the know please contradict me if i'm out of step with the flickr way).

if you do not want to be picked up from a tag feed or any other rss feed created onthe fly by flickr, make your images PRIVATE but for friends&contacts. make lots of contacts, and also place your images in appropriate groups. participate in those groups and comment on other images, soon you will have a lot of people visiting your work in the context of flickr but no random outside connections from unknown sites. you can also leave some images public to draw in new viewers. [added on edit in response to violentz below: why not define all your contacts as family or as friends for now since those are the subgroups available to us. are we not a very extended family :-) ]
you have the power!

if you are setting up an external site to use a feed from flickr based on tags, as i understand it you just do it. i like that, personally. however, i am making a proposal at work to do a project and to be clear about it i think we will create a group one has to join, then mandate a tag within that group for instant appearance on the external site. i want to propose this to my colleagues as best practice on that side. is that appropriate?

purchasing or getting a photo donated by the copyright holder for use on an external site is different -- in that case many sites would want to place a copy of the image on the external site, not link back to flickr, and not let the photographer remove the image at will as with an rss feed displayed photo.

does my external rss project proposal make sense as best practice for instant external publication? (also, if there is more i should know please point me to another thread or flickrmail me so this thread of interesting copyright info can continue without rat-holing!)
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
fotogail edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

When you browse a book in a library, you're inspecting a book you may want to buy (or read in case of a public library, which has right to offer free reading of the books).

My picture published in a web, and someone looking at it is not a violation of copyright (or intellectual property laws), the violation is that a web is using my photo without permision, while a book with my photo in a library should have permision to print it. The same way, if a web show my picture to individual, they should have my permission to do it. Because one thing is the library (internet in this case), and another thing is the book's publisher (the web publishers in this case).

It's common sense, and, I don't doubt it has happened, hard to believe that a judge may accept that argument.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jayel Aheram    says:

It is utterly pointless to argue about the complexities of copyright laws especially in this situation. Tudela lives in Spain. I doubt the comparitively permissive copyright laws (gosh, "fair use" codified?) of the US applies to him. Or the Creative Commons licenses which are derived from existing copyright laws. Though, I believe there is a Spanish version of CC.

Kelly v. Arriba or P10 v. Google? Which case do we use to further our cause?

PS: I do not know how Blogger's BlogThis works, but I do know that Flickr's version of it allows photopage-sized "thumbnails."

PPS: It appears that P10 was making money off thumbnail-sized photos and that is why they took offense to Google publishing their "thumbnail"-sized photos. The judge decided that since Google makes oodles of money from its searches, the mere act of categorizing the images in Image Search was a commercial act. Thumbnail-SIZED photos are not necessarily THUMBNAILS themselves, apparently. (Like avatars, I suppose. Nearly all LJ icons/avatars are "thumbnail"-sized, but not "thumbnails" of anything.)

PPPS: If that is the case, is Google then violating my CC-licenses for including my Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licensed photos when it includes them in their image search? Gosh. I need to fix that.

>> Aheram promptly updates his licenses. It is now Attribution-ShareAlike.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 70 months ago.

afrika_start says:

Browsing photos in a search engine like google is very different to show photos in a web like africa-start. Tunisian photos are not related to google's business, but are related with africa-start activities. That can make a point when argumenting in a judgement.

I think they are related to google's business. If i use the search term "tunesia" i see ads related to "tunesia". So every possible search term is the business of google.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Violentz    says:

fotogail said.... if you do not want to be picked up from a tag feed or any other rss feed created onthe fly by flickr, make your images PRIVATE but for friends&contacts. make lots of contacts....".

You can only make your images private for "Friend and Family". You can't make your images "PRIVATE" for just your contacts. If a general "Contact " can see your images.....so can anyone in the world who looks at Flickr.
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

Jorge Orte Tudela [deleted] says:

I don't see ads in google image search. Ads are showed in word searches, but not in image searchs.
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
Jorge Orte Tudela edited this topic 70 months ago.

afrika_start says:

If is use the known search term on the main section "Web" i see some thumbnails featured on top, the search results (text) and google ads.

But we are talking here about the nature of sites ... commercial and non commercial. If i only removed the small ad-section on the list of 10 tunesia thumbs you would not be satisfied. ;-)
Originally posted 70 months ago. (permalink)
afrika_start edited this topic 70 months ago.

Jayel Aheram    says:

PPPS: If I was making money off my blog, is Google then violating copyright laws for indexing my site, creating a copy of it in their servers (SHOCK, DOWNLOADING WEBPAGES), and publishing a snippet of it in their results?
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)

dvs    says:

Yeah, but do they make money doing that?
Posted 70 months ago. (permalink)