 |
Its the flickr API
www.flickr.com/help/stats/?search=removing+from+api#1867
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I bet they were using the PRINT SCREEN key to steal your photographs! You should send them a DMCA take-down notice and then file charges against them for violating anti-circumvention laws.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I know it is the API - but does that give anyone the rights to display copyright material on their website?
All my photos are set as ARR and not available for download.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
You'll not get sympathy from this crowd. Better to either bring it up to staff via Help by Email or in the Help Forum.
The one huge glaring problem I see is that if they are using Flickr photos, they are not linking back to the original photo page as per Flickr's ToS for using Flickr images offsite. That alone has gotten some API keys pulled.
The rest is all arguing about the meaning of copyright and Fair Use.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
HeinekenMusic.ie does not provide content but rather operates as an enhanced aggregator website. HeinekenMusic.ie does not host aggregated Third Party Content.
There you have it. It is merely an aggregator. All it is doing is pulling RSS feeds that people have requested and displaying them. Much the same way Google Reader, Feedcatcher, My Yahoo!, and others works.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
They are using the small size to tart up their website. Looks like an abuse to me.
All it is doing is pulling RSS feeds that people have requested and displaying them.
It is the displaying them on 'their' site that is the problem. Whilst there is no problem with 'you' displaying the feed in your browser, there is a problem if you redisplay them on a publicly accessible website.
They probably don't have a license for the music or video they are streaming either, so you may want to contact the RIAA.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
have you ever got the hiccups so bad they just would not stop?
hic...
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Boo
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
You could just change your photos so that only friends family's and contacts can see them... or simply don't post them to the internet.
I am always curious to see who's linking to my photos and pleased that they are... I kinda think that if I am gonna put my stuff on a public site, then it could well be used around the place as long as they aren't actually stealing the image itself.
You could boast that you photography has been used by Heineken Music in your photography CV, use their reputation to enhance yours :)
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
What is going on here is that the main sponsors of a music festival, featuring the same artists as an earlier festival (Glastonbury), those artists enforce copyright on their own music, the videos of which that will later be released again under copyright, is violating the ARR of photographers at the earlier (Glastonbury) event, in order to promote their copyright materials.
Seems like an excellent vehicle to impose copyright control on the bastards one and all.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@nathan.horner - if a commercial site wants to use my photos I'm more than happy for that but they pay commercial rates for the privilege.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Fair enough - I can totally understand that. You've got a pretty high class set up there with a lot of overheads too. Me, with my 400D, on the other hand would love to get a bit of remuneration, but at the end of the day, its a hobby for me.
Do you know any lawyers you could ask? My guess is that there are little loopholes in the law that they are probably exploiting.
I do know that they are a pretty thorough set up and do their research in pretty fine detail, so it wouldn't surprise me if they've found something that means they can do this and not pay and back it up legally.
I think one of the problems is that the internet crosses the international legal boundaries and makes a mess of the whole thing. So you might well need someone who has knowledge of Australian and Irish as well as knowing what precedents have been set in any similar cases around the world involving the internet.
We are very much in a transitional stage with legal boundaries and the internet (the other weak the RIAA got some rulings overturned on a file sharer making it harder for them to take illegal filesharers to courst).
In some ways, I guess I am back to my first post... but I'll refine it.
Perhaps, for the time being, posting somewhere as public and exploitable as FlickR is not the way to post commercial property.
That was just an early morning thought or musing... no a conclusion... other than it's sucks for you.
Oooh the coffee has kicked in now.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
nathan.horner edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
I'll ask my brother if he has any knowledge of this stuff (he used to work for them on strategy stuff and I think still acts as a consultant), but he does work with a lot of this kind of area but more music related, so he may have a good idea...
Oooh and I'll ask our publishing guy in the office, he's not the most experienced in the world, but he may have some interesting insights.
I'll let you know if I get anywhere!
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well, there is always the option of watermarking the images. It's not perfect, but it does exist.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Has anyone bothered to email the people running the website and ask them about it?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Or perhaps you could opt-out of the API.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I've been in touch with a lawyer and am waiting for legal advice on the matter.
@imarcc - the images are watermarked.
@markcbrennan - I don't want to opt out of the API (I use it myself for things at times). I just don't want some commercial entity using my photos without my permission.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
you might find a direct email to the organizers kindly asking that they not use your photos, or only use CC-Licensed stuff, is the most effective way to get them to change.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well that would be a bit of a bugger if they are using tag feeds as most of these sites do.
If he wants instant success he should report it to the help forum. Unless they have a commercial agreement with flickr and they are obeying the copyright requirements, the feeds will probably get pulled within a few hours.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I don't see what the problem is. The pics are tiny. If someone clicks on them, they link back to your Flickr page. Surely it's good publicity for you?
I don't get why some people get so outraged about this kind of thing. After all, you are posting them on a public website. Just opt of of the API, or make them private.
If you put something on the internet, expect someone to copy it. It goes with the territory.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The pics are tiny.
No they are not they are small size on flickr which is the typical size used on websites, ie they are of a commercial size for the web.
If someone clicks on them, they link back to your Flickr page.
If?
Surely it's good publicity for you?
Publicity for what?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Here's a screenshot of part of the site, heinekenmusic.ie/
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That's a bit of a pop-up window you see when clicking on one of the bands.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ Electric Spam - publicity doesn't put money in the bank yet a multinational company that makes billions per year are using photos I own and other people own for a commercial purpose.
I'm sure Heineken wouldn't be very happy if I and saw a crate of beer through their fence and decided "oooooh that looks good - I'm sure they won't mind if I take it" - it's pretty much what they are doing to me and a myriad of other photographers.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Walwyn wrote The pics are tiny.
No they are not they are small size on flickr which is the typical size used on websites, ie they are of a commercial size for the web.
If someone clicks on them, they link back to your Flickr page.
If?
Surely it's good publicity for you?
Publicity for what?
Publicity - as in more people will look at your pictures, which is surely why you put them on public view in the first place, isn't it?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Black Shadow Photography wrote @ Walwyn - publicity doesn't put money in the bank yet a multinational company that makes billions per year are using photos I own and other people own for a commercial purpose.
I'm sure Heineken wouldn't be very happy if I and saw a crate of beer through their fence and decided "oooooh that looks good - I'm sure they won't mind if I take it" - it's pretty much what they are doing to me and a myriad of other photographers.
Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be if you were to replicate the bottles of beer, show them to lots of people, and charge them for the privilege - leaving the originals intact.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Publicity - as in more people will look at your pictures, which is surely why you put them on public view in the first place, isn't it?
They aren't on public view, they are on the flickr website, to be viewed by people either accessing flickr directly, or via the API in the comfort of their own browser. Not for some 3rd party to insert themselves into the viewing experience for their own commercial gain/promotion.
I don't photograph bands but if I did and my stuff was used in this way, then I'd have had their RSS feed or API key killed.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Walwyn
I am awaiting legal advice on the matter before contacting either the website in question or contacting flickr to get the API killed.
I'm quite happy for my photos to be displayed on the site as long as they pay a fair commercial rate for them.
There are a number of other photographers who are pretty annoyed about the situation - one of them has started a group about this at www.flickr.com/groups/thatsmypic/
I think it probably best to carry on discussion there.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I am awaiting legal advice on the matter before contacting either the website in question or contacting flickr to get the API killed.
Good luck with that! The website will be gone within the week as it is simply promotion for the event next weekend (11th July). If you are going to whack it do it whilst it is still relevant.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
From the comments on a blog post:
Normally our player should've only display photos with commercial CC license, he're gone something terribly wrong and we've currently disabled the flickr photos module on the player. We're currently looking into the thread on Flickr and see what we can do for the photographers ...
I'm sorry if we've offended photographers ...
It makes me wonder if a friendly email would have solved this problem much sooner.
blog.boondoggle.eu/2008/06/kawabunga-heine.html
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It probably would have, Jakerome. But it is a lot easier to start a thread telling everyone that FLICKR ALLOWED MY STUFF TO BE STOLEN.
As if copyright infringement never existed before the Flickr API.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm gobsmacked no one thought of contacting them first, anyway - instead of running around like headless chickens, looking for lawyers etc.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Electric Spam - your headless chicken comment is out of line.
I made a business decision of what's best for my bank balance. Informing flickr is not going to get me any money - all they would do is shut down the API.
If I want payment for the unauthorised use of my images I am going to claim from the place that actually used them that was heineken not flickr.
Anyone who has cared to look will have seen that the whole heinekenmusic.ie website has been pulled for about the last 24 hours and a place holder is there in it's place.
The comments from the web developer look to be very much an admission of liability to me.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'm amazed at the different attitudes amongst flickr users with regard to the unauthorised use of images from flickr, (well, actually, I'm not)...
Black Shadow Photography, in my opinion, handled this in the most professional manner possible by going after the offender for compensation. It matters not whether the API allowed the infringement or not, the issue is the infringement and that is where he concentrated his efforts.
As long as flickr maintains, as is their right, a business objective of being a facilitator of photograph sharing, it is not in their interest to make changes to anything about their website to facilitate professionals who want to 'securely' publicise their work. It would be wonderful if the API TOU were honoured by all but in fairness to flickr staff, they do act when complaints are made.
In reality, the new deal announced with Getty may change the way the API is coded or the way the copyright information is handled by the API, making it impossible for API developers to make apps that pull in All Rights Reserved images. This is something that has been sought by many for a long time and maybe this will prompt a change in flickr's approach to the whole ARR issue and the API.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
...Steve edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that anyone contact Flickr for resolution, I was suggesting that someone contact Heineken Music and ask them to remove the photos.
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157605910043140/#...
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jakerome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Black Shadow Photography wrote Electric Spam - your headless chicken comment is out of line.
I made a business decision of what's best for my bank balance. Informing flickr is not going to get me any money - all they would do is shut down the API.
If I want payment for the unauthorised use of my images I am going to claim from the place that actually used them that was heineken not flickr.
Anyone who has cared to look will have seen that the whole heinekenmusic.ie website has been pulled for about the last 24 hours and a place holder is there in it's place.
The comments from the web developer look to be very much an admission of liability to me.
Sorry - you've completely lost me. So this is a money making excercise, as opposed to putting a stop to something you think is clearly wrong ASAP?
The comments from the dev looked to me like they made an honest mistake, which they were trying to rectify.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ Electric Spam
It is both wrong and I have certainly highlighted that. Someone has used my images for a commercial venture so yes I do want fair payment for their use. If all I cared about was the money I wouldn't have been so public with letting people know what was happening - a letter of demand from my attorney would have been sent without notifying anyone else.
Photography forms a significant part of my income; someone has taken my services for nothing without my permission of course I want to be paid. Having the photos removed isn't the issue it's that they have been used without authorisation and payment.
Negligence isn't an excuse. They obviously knew the risks about using copyright images but they didn't check. boondoggle.eu presents as a professional company with A list clientele - they should have lived up to their professionalism and none of this would have happened.
Just because you didn't mean to do something but did it inadvertently doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
If you look at the economics of this - Heineken Music are a sponsor of Oxegen. Oxegen is a three day event that attracts 80,000 patrons at a price of EUR230.85 for a 3 day ticket.
I'm guessing that the sponsorship grants Heineken an exclusive arrangement to supply beer for the festival - lets see 80,000 punters drinking 5 cans (being very conservative here) of beer per day over 3 days comes to 1.2 million cans of beer - I imagine Heineken would make a minimum of $1 per beer from the sales...
This is big business and big money - I think they can afford to pay for photographs!
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
An update on this matter... Heineken sent out this insulting letter to photographers who want payment for their images it reads:
Thank you for your email of July 7th 2008, which brought to our attention the alleged use of images owned by you on the website www.heinekenmusic.ie.
As you have previously been informed the use of any images at the time your letter was received resulted in the removal of all such images from the website - that course of action was taken by us on a precautionary basis until we investigated the matter.
In the above circumstances, and after our investigations, we have concluded that any use of the images was at best (if it could be said to be use at all, given they were immediately removed) use of a temporary nature only and would not form the basis of any copyright claim in this jurisdiction. However, in order to resolve matters, and save time, strictly without admission of any liability, and on a without prejudice basis, we would be willing to make a small payment for the inconvenience caused in having to write to us. Accordingly, we would be willing to pay in full and final settlement an amount of €15 per image allegedly used. This in our view represents a reasonable commercial royalty for the use of such images in this jurisdiction if, as we say above, there was any actual use in legal terms.
Before making any payment however, we will require you to provide us with evidence of the alleged use of each image, and proof of ownership by you of the copyright in each such image.
Please note that no further payment offer will be made in relation to this matter. If you wish to take up the offer, please provide us with the proofs referred to above.
I find this response insulting as they are claiming that by displaying the images on their website they weren't actually using them and that they offer a pathetic amount of money not for using the images but for taking the time to write a letter.
I have also found that an employee of the web developer posted a video on youtube of the website - clearly showing that the photos come from flickr. The video can be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8O9QaGjd1I
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Sorry to hear that, Black Shadow Photography. I hope you do have a good copyright lawyer in your corner. Best of luck to you.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks purplewon - I think I do but they are not back in the office until Monday.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It is so wrong for them to ask for evidence of copyright infringement before paying you.
What kind of people would demand evidence after being accused of a crime? God, they have no shame at all. They are presuming they are innocent before being proven guilty by the courts, how dare they?!
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Get off your damned high horse Jayel - no one has said there is anything unreasonable about being asked to provide proof (which I have done).
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
I am just saying that they are obviously unfairly burdening you with providing proof of their wrongdoing. They should just admit infringement and take your word for it.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
inline linking does not constitute copyright infringement.
the Heineken site does not host your copyright material, and thus isn't liable for anything.
how can a site violate your copyright when it hasn't copied anything?
for the legal basis of this argument, read perfect 10 v. Google, specifically the "server test" section of that decision.
of course, that may or may not hold any weight in the german legal system, but i've a feeling you don't know the specifics of german copyright law either.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
the "server test", or some german equivalent, is likely what the "temporary nature" line of their response to you was alluding to.
if you think you have the law on your side here, you really don't and i'd imagine you'd walk yourself right into a brick wall if you actually pressed a case against them.
but of course i'm very curious and would honestly like you to try, just so we can see the results one way or the other.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Excuse me where have I said anything about claiming for copyright infringement - my claim for payment is for commercial use of the images.
Copyright infringement is a completely different kettle of fish.
The fact is the images are copyright and owned by me. That allows me to charge for their use.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Black Shadow Photography edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
"my claim for payment is for commercial use of the images."
what is the law against "commercial use of images" that is totally unrelated to copyright, exactly?
i'm curious as to the nature of this seemingly invented law.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
at the server level, all the heineken site is doing is pointing at your photos.
they are not copying, altering, re-hosting or doing anything at all with your image data.
whether what they're pointing at is there for anyone to look at is totally up to you. you can take it down or replace it with something else. if you cared enough about the security of your own photos you could host them on your own site, where you could then blacklist heineken specifically or force them and any other site to apply to be whitelisted.
maybe it'd be better to put this in physical terms, if you're better at thinking in a physical way.
you stuck your photo on the outside of your window. where everyone can see it. a guy from heineken stands on the public sidewalk and points at the photo in your window and says "hey, isn't that great" while wearing a heineken shirt.
there's absolutely nothing illegal or wrong with that. it is how the web works.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
@striatic - can you explain how what Heineken has done does contravene the flickr API Terms of Service; in particular the section in bold?
a. You shall:
1. Comply with the Flickr Community Guidelines at www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne, the Flickr Terms of Use at www.flickr.com/terms.gne, and the Yahoo! Terms of Service at docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/.
2. Comply with any requirements or restrictions imposed on usage of the photos by their respective owners. Remember, Flickr doesn't own the images - Flickr users do. Although the Flickr APIs can be used to provide you with access to Flickr user photos, neither Flickr's provision of the Flickr APIs to you nor your use of the Flickr APIs override the photo owners' requirements and restrictions, which may include "all rights reserved" notices (attached to each photo by default when uploaded to Flickr), Creative Commons licenses or other terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between you and the owners. In ALL cases, you are solely responsible for making use of Flickr photos in compliance with the photo owners' requirements or restrictions. If you use Flickr photos for a commercial purpose, the photos must be marked with a Creative Commons license that allows for such use, unless otherwise agreed upon between you and the owner. You can read more about this here: www.creativecommons.org or www.flickr.com/creativecommons.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
in all seriousness, what i think you need to do is is think for a moment about the situation you've put your photos into.
you've places the image files on a server that says something on your behalf. what it says is "yes."
the browser asks the server "may i please look at this?" and the server says "yes." on your behalf.
it doesn't have to say yes. if you had your own host, you could tell it to say "no. not unless you're on my site." or "no. only if you're on a site i like." or "no. not if you're on that site i don't like."
but you chose the server that says "yes." that was your choice.
as it turns out, choosing the server that says "yes." probably does some magical things for you. it probably magically leads to more people looking at your photos, doesn't it? it probably leads to more people commenting on your photos, doesn't it? .. have you ever thought that this might not be a simple coincidence? have you ever thought that this may be, in fact, a product of the "yes-ey-ness" of the server?
and let's look at the problems with taking these "yes." and "no." type answers for granted. let's consider that instead we constructed a framework where the law said "yes doesn't always mean yes."
the simplicity of "yes." meaning "yes." and "no." meaning "no." is part of the very brilliance of the web. as i mentioned earlier, there's a whole range of responses between "yes." and "no." but they all mean exactly what they say in the same way that "yes." and "no." do.
these kinds of responses shape the efficiency of sharing on the web, which also, whether you like it or not, form the foundation of all the attention on flickr that you love so much. so there's a lot at stake in yes meaning yes and no meaning no. it is why you see decisions like perfect 10 v. google endeavouring to properly understand what's actually going on at the server level instead of denying its relevance and ruling on a more superficial, surface level.
which is really a long-winded, convoluted way of asking why the heck if you want to say "no." are you putting your photos on the server that says "yes." ?
from heineken's justified perspective, you're running a bait and switch operation.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"@striatic - can you explain how what Heineken has done does contravene the flickr API Terms of Service; in particular the section in bold?"
they may well be in violation of the API TOS.
but in that case the legal repercussions are completely different.
they've violated an agreement with flickr, not an agreement with you, and thus owe you nothing.
flickr can possibly cut off their key, but that has nothing to do with your suing them, or their violating copyright.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
@striatic
inline linking does not constitute copyright infringement.
Rubbish. You have a single case that involves a search engine and a 'make it up as we go along' court in the US that is notorious for 'making it up wrong'. None of which applies to a Dutch Brewing company promoting the works of the music industry on a website in Ireland.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
i should add that in that TOS, flickr sets requirements that essentially go above and beyond those of copyright law. that's perfectly fine.
they can set pretty much whatever terms they want. they're flickr's terms to set after-all.
but that doesn't make henineken or anyone else beholden to you. they're beholden to fickr.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"Rubbish. You have a single case that involves a search engine and a 'make it up as we go along' court in the US that is notorious for 'making it up wrong' none of which applies to a Dutch Brewing company promoting the works of the music industry on a website in Ireland."
you don't have and rulings from any of those jurisdictions that refute the principle, do you?
i'm using the ruling as the basis for an argument that is grounded in more precedent than anything else that's out there.
the principle is that you actually have to copy something in order to infringe copyright.
isn't that just a totally ludicrous concept?
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
the principle is that you actually have to copy something in order to infringe copyright.
No you do not. Napster were busted, under violation of distribution rights, because they allowed people to put up links on their servers.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
no, you misunderstand the napster structure.
in the case of napster, and later grokster, the sites/services in question enabled a transaction between two parties, neither of which held the copyright to the copied work.
the situation on flickr is completely different, with the copyright holder being a willing and direct party to the transaction, having appointed flickr as a proxy.
oh, and by the way, the court that denied the napster appeal was the 9th circuit court that you hate so much. but i guess they were "making it up as they go"
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
put simply ..
napster was aiding copyright infringement.
heineken is aiding a file transfer between a browser and an ostensibly willing copyright owner.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Under the flickr API ToS Heineken still has to comply with my wishes.
On my flickr home page there is a notice that is clearly visible and was clearly visible long before this matter came up that says.
All photos on my flickr account are copyright and not to be distributed or replicated without written permission from me
I believe they are distributing or replicating my photos without my permission.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"All photos on my flickr account are copyright and not to be distributed or replicated without written permission from me"
dude, the whole point of the perfect 10 v. google decision is that inline linking is not distribution or replication.
it is pointing.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
and yes, under the API ToS Heineken has to do a lot of things .. but ultimately it is for flickr to judge whether or not the key should be pulled, not you.
if flickr wants to pull Heineken's key because it is thursday and the magic donkey demands human sacrifice, that's their call and it is fine by me.
it is irrespective of whether a copyright violation actually occurred and it is irrespective of whether you can sue Heineken for damages and expect to win. but again, i'm honestly curious to see you try.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
but i guess they were "making it up as they go"
Of course they do, which is why the left hand never knows what the right hand is up to.
Now if you followed the P10 v Google judgment you'd have noticed that the question they were asking was whether Google was a primary infringer for framing and embedding the P10 stuff that was on an infringing 3rd party website. The answer to that was quite rightly no. If embedding was so OK outside of the limited case of P10/Google you'd be able to find a legal opinion for it. Instead even the EFF says its not clear what the court was thinking.
It is a completely different situation to that of Heineken, where they were directly embedding the ARR content and, unlike Google, their embedding removed the context from the image, and they also had access to information via the API that the image was ARR.
Additionally whereas Google are inlining to enable a user of their services to find an image and site. Heineken were embedding in order to promote copyright controlled music. The self same industry that in the jurisdiction that the infringement occurred changes a small barbershop $500+ if he plays the radio whilst cutting hair.
Lets have a level playing field shall we.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
they aren't making it up as they go, really.
the two decisions are completely consistent.
napster = accessory to murder
heineken = accessory to argument over tea
my meaning being that an argument over tea can be resolved by the offended party simply leaving the room, in the same way the Black Shadow has a plethora of opt-out options and retains full control over the image data.
the things you mention do not address the "server test" logic whatsoever and are totally unrelated to the rationale the decision sets out. at any rate .. google removes plenty of context from the image. they even display a cached version at the same size as heineken is inline linking, which is much closer to violating copyright than heineken even approaches. even the linkback is more direct and contextual on the heineken site, as with google image search you have to go through some traffic monitoring google redirect.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
one thing i find interesting is that your reflex response to perfect 10 v. google is 'bullshit decision, bullshit court' while simultaneously and unknowingly using another one of its other decisions to prop up an argument.
now, personally i don't *fully* agree with the napster decision. i think it has had negative repercussions for legitimate internet applications and i think it put an undue burden on web services... but it is clearly the law of the land and the subsequent grokster decision was no surprise and i'm not going to sit around handwaving and calling the 9th circuit a bullshit court just because i don't totally agree with it.
i'd also guess that the reason why there's not much happening in terms of challenging the ruling is that, outside the flickr echo chamber, people have just moved on. like inline linking or hate it, it is standard operating procedure on the web. there are standard practices for preventing it. we've had inline linking for what? 15 years now? can anyone pull up a single ruling against inline linking on copyright grounds?
this isn't some crazy newfangled idea that has dropped out of the sky. there are many methods over the years that have been developed for web-hosts to deal with unwanted inline linking. it is a mature practice and the relationship between linker, linkee and viewer has been established for a long time now.
people with a commercial stake in the web, and thus the money and need to challenge the laws, seem to have moved on. we've got a ruling and it makes sense and establishes a common framework for interaction like good law should. and yet on flickr there's a constant pseudo-legal fervor that rejects the basic frameworks that everyone else is working from. it is somewhat baffling.
i guess it is a case of being "late to the party". the weird thing is that not only is the law being rejected out of hand, but all the methods for blocking inline linking that have been developed in this landscape have also been rejected out of hand. hosting your own photos on your own server might be *somewhat* difficult, but i'm a bit shocked that given all the energy thrown at this inline linking/API argument that no energy whatsoever goes into using the existing, time-tested methods and tools for dealing with this kind of thing. even the suggestion to opt-out of the API is glibly dismissed even though it would immediately and thoroughly address these supposedly catastrophic incidents.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
yet on flickr there's a constant pseudo-legal fervor that rejects the basic frameworks that everyone else is working from
No there is not. Most web hosts will pull a page if it is embedding images or framing from other sites. No doubt should anyone frame Heineken's web content in a way that they dislike they'll be whining 'copyright violation' to the web host too.
Now would you like to explain again, baring in mind that there are 100s of proxy servers one can cycle through, just how one can effectively block framing and inline linking?
people with a commercial stake in the web, and thus the money and need to challenge the laws, seem to have moved on.
Hands up anyone that believes that embedding Disney content on your website that would be OK.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Michael J Photography [deleted] says:
God I am so sick of the endless numbers of threads whining about this kind of thing, can we just have one thread for bitching and whining about who stole my pictures now bla bla bla, yada yada yada....
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
3rd Eye Studios, nobody is forcing you to read these threads. The issue of copyright infringement matters to a great many people. If it doesn't matter to you, don't participate in the discussion. You could start another thread for people like you to whine about how much you hate people whining about their stolen photos. The majority of posters to this thread do care and don't really care about your whining.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
...Steve edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
Ya
hoo
do
es
not
gi
ve
a
fu
ck
a
bout
our
pho
tos
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
GabrielR edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
So they offered 15 Quid per photo? Considering they probably hosted 1000's of photos, that seems like a LOT of money. How many magazines shell our $20,000 per issue for photo rights?
I think it would be tough to justify more. The only hope would be to get statutory damages, which might not exist in that particular jurisdiction.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
How I read that letter from Heeeneken to Black Shadow Photography that has upset him and others on this board:
Thunk yuoo fur yuoor imeeel ooff Jooly 7t 2008, vheech bruooght tu oooor ettenshun zee elleged use-a ooff imeges oovned by yuoo oon zee vebseete-a vvv.heeenekenmoosic.ie-a.
Bork Bork Bork!
Es yuoo hefe-a prefeeuoosly beee inffurmed zee use-a ooff uny imeges et zee time-a yuoor letter ves receeefed resoolted in zee remufel ooff ell sooch imeges frum zee vebseete-a - thet cuoorse-a ooff ecshun ves tekee by us oon a precooshunery besees until ve-a infestigeted zee metter.
Bork Bork Bork!
In zee ebofe-a curcoomstunces, und effter oooor infestigeshuns, ve-a hefe-a cunclooded thet uny use-a ooff zee imeges ves et best (iff it cuoold be-a seeed tu be-a use-a et ell, geefee zeey vere-a immedeeetely remufed) use-a ooff a tempurery netoore-a oonly und vuoold nut furm zee besees ooff uny cupyreeght cleeem in thees jooreesdicshun. Hooefer, in oorder tu resulfe-a metters, und sefe-a time-a, streectly veethuoot edmeessiun ooff uny leeebility, und oon a veethuoot prejoodeece-a besees, ve-a vuoold be-a veelling tu meke-a a smell peyment fur zee incunfeneeence-a coosed in hefeeng tu vreete-a tu us. Eccurdeengly, ve-a vuoold be-a veelling tu pey in fooll und feenel settlement un emuoont ooff €15 per imege-a ellegedly used. Thees in oooor feeoo represents a reesuneble-a cummerceeel ruyelty fur zee use-a ooff sooch imeges in thees jooreesdicshun iff, es ve-a sey ebofe-a, zeere-a ves uny ectooel use-a in legel terms.
Bork Bork Bork!
Beffure-a mekeeng uny peyment hooefer, ve-a veell reqooure-a yuoo tu prufeede-a us veet ifeedence-a ooff zee elleged use-a ooff iech imege-a, und pruuff ooff oovnersheep by yuoo ooff zee cupyreeght in iech sooch imege-a.
Bork Bork Bork!
Pleese-a nute-a thet nu foorzeer peyment ooffffer veell be-a mede-a in releshun tu thees metter. Iff yuoo veesh tu teke-a up zee ooffffer, pleese-a prufeede-a us veet zee pruuffs refferred tu ebofe-a.
They violated Flickr's TOS by displaying ARR images, which amounts to copyright infringement. Flickr should revoke Heineken's key and they should be subject to legal action by anyone whose ARR photos appeared on the website.
Also, I think that ARR images should not appear in Flickr's API.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Very good StevenM_61!
@jakerome
Who cares if it is a lot of money? We are talking about a company that makes BILLIONS per year. They spend millions on the Heineken Music Ireland marketing campaign each year. I bet they had an exclusivity arrangement with the Oxegen Festival to supply the beer there - that alone would reap hundreds of thousands, if not millions in sales and they were using my photos and those of other photographers to promote it.
It's not like it is a company that can't afford to pay commercial rates for marketing material.
The offer of 15 Euros per image was not made to all photographers, just those who have contacted Heineken to say their images were being used without permission - to prove the use people would need screenshots of their photos displayed. Something that people can no longer get as the website was taken offline a day after people started to contact them and saying you are using my images without permission, you have to pay for that privilege.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
So what sort of damages do you plan to request? What's the standard rate for displaying one photo, amongst a sequence of others, at low resolutions for 1-2 weeks?
If they offered you $1000/photo, would you consider that insulting?
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
One might accept hirez evidence of a senior executive being eviscerated.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@jakerome
The offer Heineken made wasn't even for image use it is for writing a letter.
Heineken are denying they even used the images!
$1000 per image is in line with what Getty charge when they find unauthorised use of images and it is slightly more than what my RM agencies charge for use in these circumstances. So yes, that figure is in the ball park.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Richard, your flickr stats will be able to show you the number of referrals that your images received from the heinekenmusic.ie website. This is prima facie evidence that your images were displayed and clicked on through their site. That should be enough circumstantial evidence to calculate usage without having to provide any other proof.
It will not calculate for you how often your images were displayed without a click through, but it is a start and it would be impossible for heinekenmusic.ie to argue, legally, with the evidence.
I don't know whether flickr keep a log of the images called by API keys but if they do, you may be able to subpoena that information to establish calls made by the API on your images and thereby calculate the number of unclicked displays in addition to the clicked displays in your stats.
Striatic might know if such a log exists.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
...Steve edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
So now you're just haggling over the price. Good luck with that.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"Now would you like to explain again, baring in mind that there are 100s of proxy servers one can cycle through, just how one can effectively block framing and inline linking?"
whitelisting is the best and most practical way. just require permission before you let anyone inline link. that's total power. you can dynamically replace all inline linked images with an image saying "if you'd like to inline link this image please contact ____@____.com" so when they try to inline link the photo it doesn't work and instead they get your contact info. this requires only a couple lines of code to accomplish, plus the whitelist itself of course.
you can also dynamically use your referrer log to blacklist, which is significantly more complicated but also effective. so as the inline linking site switches proxies, you just add them to the list after they run up a certain number of hits. this is handy for cutting the legs out from under major bandwidth leeching while still allowing for unrestricted "casual" use.
the proxy switching argument is also weak because such switching may run afoul of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
"Hands up anyone that believes that embedding Disney content on your website that would be OK."
Disney isn't so mind numbingly stupid as to expose important content to the world over http like that. heck, if you go to disney.com right now the entire site is built in flash, rendering the hypothetical shenanigans you suggest impossible.
this isn't a problem for companies like Disney because they aren't dumb. either they want their content out there as widely as possible, or they keep it nice and secure using the methods i've described and others. the problem companies like disney have relates to actual copyright infringement, which is much more difficult to defend against technically than inline linking is.
as for framing, try sticking www.nytimes.com/ in an iframe sometime and watch what happens.
at any rate .. "hands up anyone who believes" doesn't trump the clearly worded, logically reasonable perfect 10 v. google ruling. you can't infringe copyright if you haven't copied anything. it's the law and all the wishing it isn't so in the world won't change it.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
there's also a broader perspective to this than applies to the issue at hand.
we're really operating in the embeddable web more than ever.
companies love it when people embed their content. it is a way they can increase their reach. in the case of embedded flash, you can even push ads through of links into your own site or other properties.
so there's actually an incentive for the major players to foster a system that lowers the barriers for embeddability as much as possible, knowing the relative ease with which exploitative embedding/inlining can be dealt with and the benefits that can be reaped by lowering the barriers and allowing the content to spread.
the last thing they want is people worried the ramifications of embedding or inlining... we're entering a period of time where the copyright stakeholders are ultimately the net beneficiaries of embedding and inline linking because it represents a situation of increased power and opportunity.
when someone inline links your content, they're essentially saying "here, have a little piece of my site" which is actually a tremendous opportunity if you don't get all knee-jerk about it.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
stratic "when someone inline links your content, they're essentially saying "here, have a little piece of my site" which is actually a tremendous opportunity if you don't get all knee-jerk about it."
I agree that the whole in-line linking adventure can pay dividends if it increases your exposure and leads to brand awareness and eventually conversion into sales. But, with flickr's policy of not allowing watermarks that include your commercial url and only allowing one link on the profile page to your commercial url, the value to commercial photographers on flickr is negligable. The ratio of photosteam hits to profile hits is hugely unbalanced so, other than seeing your image on flickr, the user has to go to some additional effort to actually find out more about the photographer whose work is being embedded and as we all know, most surfers are lazy bastards and want their information handed to them without any great effort on their part.
Watermark your images with your commercial url, or put it in the image name, or put it in the description, or put it in a comment, or put it anywhere other than your profile and watch what happens.
So, others embedding your work in their properties, in the most part, gives you negligable benefit but gives them the benefit of using your content to enhance those properties.
And before I get lynched, I said negligable benefit, not NO benefit, there will always be the opportunity for surfers to actually do some extra clicking and find your profile, but the reality is, most couldn't be bothered. Yes I know that if someone really wants to contact you they will find a way, but the community guidelines just make the whole thing too much bother.
As someone who pays for flickr, I have always felt that there should be more latitude given to commercial photographers to promote themselves on flickr.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
...Steve edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
the proxy switching argument is also weak because such switching may run afoul of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
How does the DMCA come into play if embedding is a 'fair-use'?
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Walwyn, in the context of the Perfect 10 vs Google ruling and in the context of this discussion, fair use can only be claimed if the embedding is of significant benefit to the public interest. In-line linking of your work, on a commercial website, or indeed any website, that does not fulfill the public interest criterion, is not considered fair use and is therefore DMCA fodder.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I know, but striatic seems to think that the P10 v Google case gave a greenlight to all embedded linking. If he's right then the DMCA does not apply. He also has the quaint idea that the DMCA would apply to me in the UK.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
I'm not sure I understand this -
Striatic at any rate .. "hands up anyone who believes" doesn't trump the clearly worded, logically reasonable perfect 10 v. google ruling. you can't infringe copyright if you haven't copied anything. it's the law and all the wishing it isn't so in the world won't change it.
My english musn't be very good because that's as clear as mud.
Forgive me if I've interpreted your words incorrectly, striatic, but as I understand what you have written, you are saying that the Perfect 10 vs Google ruling protects ALL embedding and in-line linking, if that is your belief then you are wrong. While the ruling did uphold the view that in-line linking is not a breach of copyright, it certainly DID NOT offer embedding the defense of 'fair use'.
Walwyn While the DMCA is unenforceable outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, there are many mainstream providers who take the view that, while unenforceable, there must be just cause for the notice to be sent and most will investigate the claim of infringement and some will act accordingly.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
...Steve edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
I think striatic's point is that when posting a link, the poster is not copying anything. How can you commit copyright infringement if you aren't making a copy?
Does anyone have a single ("one") example of a judicial decision that found someone guilty of copyright infringement for embedding content hosted elsewhere on a web page, in the United States, Ireland or any other jurisdiction?
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Kelly vs Aribasoft
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That case was won a default judgment when the defendant didn't show up in court. In fact, the appeals court overturned the judge's summary initial summary judgment that held in-line display of images to be a copyright violation.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's actually a very informative read, especially on the nature of using thumbnail images in a search engine. The appeals court's decision finding that using thumbnails in a search engine is legal is written much more clearly that the Perfect 10 vs. Google case. For example, in Kelly vs. Arriba Soft, no mention is made about how linking to the original is a mitigating factor, nor does the commercial nature of Arriba Soft's Ditto.com impact the fair-use defense.
The in-line embedding is really unsettled, since no decision was made on the merit of that case.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Link: www.eff.org/files/filenode/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/20030707_9...
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think that the issue of the legality or illegality of embedding is moot in this particular case. Heinekenmusic.ie, without doubt, have taken legal advice on this and that advice must be to try to avoid litigation. Their legal team must have evaluated the legislation as it stands and advised them not to test the water in a costly case where the outcome is very much uncertain and has ramifications beyond this one instance.
If it does go to court in Australia then that will be the test case for that jurisdiction. Perhaps this could be the case that clarifies embedding once and for all. (In Australia at least).
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Or their legal counsel looked at it and decided the easiest, cheapest course of action was to offer 15 quid per photo, even if they were confident they would win any case on its merits.
I don't think there are any "must haves" here.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I can't say I agree with you on that. The tone of the offer is typical of 'scare 'em in to agreeing tactics' employed by many, if not most, civil litigators. From what Richard has said already, his action, if he takes one, and it sounds like he is determined to do so, could run to a six figure claim and that is certainly one that will have to be defended.
From my discussions with colleagues here in Ireland, I believe, under existing Irish legislation, the court would support the claim of infringement.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A six-figure claim on displaying small-sizes of Richard's images for which he did not obtain a model release for? That will be interesting.
I actually want Richard to pursue this. So that a new precedent can be established that would greatly strengthen the groundwork laid by Kelly v. Arriba.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Jayel - I didn't need to obtain model releases, I was an accredited photographer at the event.
I'm waiting on legal advice and will update the state of play once I have it.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Here's a court decision regarding damages for unlicensed use of photos.
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/03/47usc230day.htm
A choice bit:
B) The plaintiff's demand letter quoted his standard license fee for the photos but, as a penalty, demanded 3X that amount and said the settlement price would increase 10X if the plaintiff wasn't paid in 2 weeks. This type of escalating demands is fairly typical with freelancers, who often overestimate the value of their work both in the market and to particular defendants. The court scoffs at the 10X demand, rejecting its legitimacy as a measure of copyright damages, and instead awards the plaintiff its license fee without any gross-ups. I hope this opinion encourages freelancer photographers to make settlement demands based on a realistic assessment of damages, not based on fantastic artificially inflated license fees.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
 Yes, and the need to defend it is why they are offering a settlement. Let's put it this way: imagine you are Heineken, and you are confident you will win the case, but it will cost you $50,000 to defend it. Alternatively, offering $30/photo to each photographer who requests it may end up costing $30,000. Ergo, even if Heineken is correct, it is cheaper to settle than it is to win in court.
That said, I may be wrong and you may be right. The point is, there's no way to know for certain, and our own biases no doubt inform our opinions.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
OK, I checked on Getty on one random concert photo. Getty charges $50 for up to 3 months of use on a website. If the court used the same logic as the judge did in the case I noted above, one possible outcome is the judge awards $50 for each image used. And you'd need to prove that Heineken used each image to receive compensation, of course.
Now, since the period of use was substantially less than 3 months, Heineken could request a lower amount for each image. And in a trial, you may be able to subpoena information proving that they displayed more of your photos.
But given that Getty charges $50 for 3 months of online use, I don't think an offer of ~$30/image is insultingly low. It may be a little low. It may be a little high.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jakerome edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Jakerome, the Getty comparison would apply if Richard had shot the images as stock, which I don't think he did. A correct comparison would be how much, as an accredited photographer, he was charging his clients to license the works. I did a comparison with Alamy Rights Managed images in the same genre and resolution and got a completely different value to yours, over three times as much in fact. While the stock libraries provide some guidance to value, they don't reflect the original fee based value that the photographer's client put on the work.
I don't think those dreadful celebrity glossies like Hello would accept stock valuations as a settlement for the infringement of the rights of images that they had paid huge sums to acquire. Indeed, in a number of such cases they have received settlements that reflected their valuation as opposed to anything else.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Heinekenmusic.ie
Of course if it's Irish it has to be beer related...lol...
(I know, I am Irish myself)
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
god why is this still an issue?
in this case, it seems that the site's API-using code was bugged, and so it was yoinking pics that it shouldn't been showing (all rights reserved pics in this case), and they didn't realize it. As soon as they realized it, they stopped it. But the flickr AAAH SOMEONE IS STEALING MY PICTUARS crowd, instead of being the one to inform them. "BTW, your shit is showing copyrighted pics. it shouldn't be. maybe you should fix it?", waste their time and energy here bitching and whining and having a bloody aneurysm about it while looking for a lawyer.
Seriously, where have your interpersonal skills gone? The world does not exist to rip you off; people do not exist to rip you off. Most of the time, it's a mistake that is easily cleared up.
Also, Black Shadow is clearly just a gold-digger. An overly litigious gold-digger.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Mullenkedheim edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
companies love it when people embed their content. it is a way they can increase their reach.
Oh happy days! Good for them, but let them decide about their own content not everyone else's.
If Heineken want to take photos and embed them on their website fine. If other people want to take photos and let Heineken embed them on a website fine. What Heineken, or more importantly, lazy web designers shouldn't be doing is deciding that they can embed everyone in the world's content on their dozy website.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Walwyn edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
