Vancouver / Discuss

Airchinapilot    says:

The fuck??

www.thatsvancouver.com/?s=airchinapilot
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

"Hello Keith,

Thank you for your email and I understand where you are coming from.
Here'e the problem. We can't filter your results out of the feed,
only you can do that. Flickr is a US site and under US copyright the
pictures in the RSS feed are deemed fair use. We provide attribution
and we don't host the pictures. In fact we point them to your account
if they click on the image. Additionally we only use a small version
of the images which is provided in the RSS feed.

We want to respect your wishes but only you can control your pictures.

I'm sorry you do not see any benefit to the additional visits you
receive by having your pictures mentioned on Thats Vancouver.

Regards,

John"

and more:

"Keith,

In case it wasn't clear in my previous email. You mentioned various
license levels for your images. Did you know that flickr does not
pass the license information in the RSS feed? If they did we'd be
sure to only apply creative commons images. Even though we'd like to
filter by license type we cannot as the RSS feed does not contain this
information."
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
Airchinapilot edited this topic 23 months ago.

John Goldsmith    says:

Despicable.

That is not excuse. The site is still breaking the law. Ignorance, or in this case laziness or disregard, are not an excuse to break the law. It would be like John (the other one) saying he's a vegetarian but he eats steak because someone keeps giving him porterhouse for free. In other words, John is not a vegetarian. Likewise, John and www.thatsvancouver.com are not at the mercy of Flickr. John has a choice. He doesn't need to eat the steak or post the photos. It just means that he's trying to make excuses and place blame so that he can use photos that are not his to make money. That is morally wrong. It is illegal. If it were my photo, I would fire off a DCMA takedown notice to his host, who is:

Contact: customersupport@enom.com
Visit: www.enom.com

John Goldsmith    says:

OK.. so it appears I will be contacting the host to takedown the site after doing a search for my photos on the site:

www.thatsvancouver.com/?s=waxy
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 23 months ago.

canuck4everr says:

They are using my photos also and mine are all rights reserved .
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

John Goldsmith    says:

I'm putting together a Notice of Copyright Infringement for my photos along with an invoice. I see about 72 photo violations but my words are also copyrighted and there are photos of my daughters -- both minors. That's a no no. I'll see how the company responds and then possibly send a takedown notice to the host.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 23 months ago.

Gary Hubbs | The Scale Gallery says:

They should have set up their own pool, like Vancouver Is Awesome or The Tyee, etc. People would at least have the choice to opt-in.

Trying to decide if I should just rip all my photos from this pool.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

From Flickr. Gee thanks a lot. I guess it's time to consider getting out of Flickr.
"
Flickr does not have control over third-party websites so
you will need to contact the site owner to resolve this
issue.

It appears that they are only linking to the images in your
account. One option you have in this case is to rotate the
image, then rotate it back. This will change the URL of the
photo and break the link from the blog.

Please note: This will impact all instances where the image
is blogged. If it is also blogged somewhere you want it to
show, you should update it there afterward."
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

I don't feel this is Flickr's fault; they can't control the behaviour of a third party.

From both a legal and ethical standpoint, if the RSS feed doesn't separate out photos by license, then the company needs to not use the RSS Feed. Simple as that. They're trying to pass the buck on to Flickr because they know they're doing something wrong.

The argument that pictures in an rss feed are deemed fair use is total crap. Ignorant or arrogant, they are clearly in the wrong.

For those interested, here's some info on how to send a DMCA Takedown Notice:

rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html

I think if their ISP were to receive a large number of these, they might just take down the entire site.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

I shot over an email requesting they remove it and explaining to them that their argument about RSS feeds is BS. I guess we'll find out if it is ignorance or arrogance.

I'll keep you guys posted. If he still refuses, I won't be shy about DMCA-ing all of my images.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

I don't feel this is Flickr's fault; they can't control the behaviour of a third party.

Can Flickr not block access from Flickr to that site? I don't control other sites but I can sort their IP address into a filter.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

Attempting to create blacklist of sites that misuse Flickr RSS Feeds for all Flickr groups would be a staggering undertaking, to say the least. I can't imagine the time and manpower that would take. It'd also be unfriendly, restrictive, and at the end of the day, it's not their problem.

Sites using photos from Flickr need to follow the license, and if they don't then it's the responsibility of the photographer to get them to stop. Flickr is just a platform, they're neutral.

At absolute most, Flickr should make licensing more prominently visible on pages and in RSS feeds.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

Apparently, I was reading in that other thread I started on Flickr Central that licensing IS in the RSS feeds.

I can't comment on the blacklisting. I don't do administration on the scale of Yahoo.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
Airchinapilot edited this topic 23 months ago.

matt    says:

OK, trying to keep up, so I'll break this into two posts:

License data isn't in the RSS items. The technically-minded can verify this themselves in a number of ways. If that's not you, here's a sample item from the head of the pool: gist.github.com/478782

It's not trivial* to blacklist IPs from accessing either RSS or photos directly by their URL. The big reason is simply scale: checking every Flickr photo served against even a smallish list of banned IPs is basically a non-starter. Other reasons include blocking legitimate sites (rare but possible), for RSS they may be accessing the feed through a legitimate republisher/aggregator, the offending site may be able to trivially change their IP, and they might already be accessing via a network of IPs in the first place. It's not impossible, but very little really is, and Flickr (in my opinion) takes a fairly reasonable stance on what's practical.

* I use this in the computer-science sense, meaning "fucking difficult, hideously expensive, maybe both."
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

Okay, so educated on the blocking access.

It's unfortunate if licensing isn't in the RSS, though in that other thread it was claimed that it was. Or maybe I misread it and they meant that it is supported in the newest RSS but not by Flickr.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
Airchinapilot edited this topic 23 months ago.

Gary Hubbs | The Scale Gallery says:

I'm not a lawyer (or a graphic designer), so I'm trying a guerrilla approach. My latest addition to the pool has appeared on their site.



But the tag I've added to all 125 of my images in this pool hasn't been added to their tag cloud as of yet (thatsvancouver.com is reposting All Rights Reserved images without consent).

What does that site provide anyway? I know Canada won curling gold; that was like what, long enough ago that the Earth has traveled half-way around the freaking sun since then!
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

Gary: The site doesn't provide anything, it's a spamblog or sblog. It pretty much just exists to keep autoposting new content so it shows up in search engines. That way, it makes a bit of residual income from ads and requires no work on the part of the owner to maintain.

Therefore, if you throw one of these together, it makes you $10 a month in ad clicks, and there's no upkeep? Make 1,000 of them, now you make $10,000 a month.

It's just spam. That's why it's a whole network of 'ThatsCityX.com' but there's little to no original content.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

John Goldsmith    says:

Cabbit's got it exactly, correct. It thatsvancouver's responsibility. They are making money from your photos. There excuse doesn't jive at all. They own the website. They are responsible for what goes on there. It's Copyright Infringement. Period.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 23 months ago.

matt    says:

OK, technical stuff aside, I think we can all agree they're breaking the rules and are basically full of crap:
• if they don't know the license, they must assume it's copyright.
• it's trivial to create an API service that behaves correctly w.r.t. licensing[1].
• they're breaking Flickr's terms.
In short, like cabbit says, their rationalization is total BS.

Unfortunately, none of that really matters because these are not legitimate sites. They aren't interested in the rules, and will exploit what ambiguity there is[2] to delay or misdirect.

The bright side, if there is one, is that these sites don't really attract any legitimate traffic - it's unlikely any real people are viewing your photos there. That's not wonderful, of course, but to me at least it's very slightly better than, say, someone passing it off as "his gallery".

As I write this, the article at the top of their page is about Canada's gold medal in men's curling, which apparently happened "last Saturday". It's lifted verbatim from a wire service. A clue to the real purpose of the page is on the lower-right, under the tags. There's three "legit" places people might want to go (nhl.com, vancouver2010.com, and this flickr group), and a much-longer list of links to sites that are basically the same as the offending site - predominantly lifted content, links, a couple of Google Ads, maybe a rigged "search".

In other words, they're using our photos as camouflage to make them appear to be a real blog about Vancouver. Then, things they link to appear more legitimate to Google, which lets them boost traffic places, fiddle with ad fraud, or even sell legitimate-seeming SEO services to clients. All very "grey area" at best.

So the best approach, if you ask me, is this:

1) If you really want to, write them, once, purely pro-forma. 99% chance they'll ignore you or return some rationalization. I wouldn't write them again to dispute a point or "correct" them. They're not talking to you in good faith, just attempting to put you off. Personally, I wouldn't bother writing in the first place.

2) DMCA their upstream host. Be aware of what the DMCA entails. It is a sworn statement, and it can be contested. Be prepared for nothing to happen: if the offending site contests the DMCA, you will have to sue and make your case in court, which I'm guessing you probably don't want to do. Many such operations use a hosting service that favours their operation, so a DMCA isn't quite the magic bullet that it is elsewhere.

3) The interesting one. Report them to Google for AdSense violations. Part of Google's terms is that you can't host AdSense on pages with content to which you don't have the copyright.
Here's the violation report form:
www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py?contact=vio...
There relevant policy is here, under "Copyrighted Material":
www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182

The Google violation report is a little misleading; it says to file a DMCA to remove your own copyrighted content. In this situation, that's not entirely correct: your content isn't hosted with Google, a DMCA to them isn't appropriate. You're reporting a violation of their AdSense policies, which is slightly different. It is probably helpful to explain this, and that you've already filed a DMCA with the relevant host. It's likely they're violating any number of Google's official & unofficial rules, and if Google kills their AdSense account or otherwise breaks up the link farming, that's actually hitting them where it hurts.



[1] They can't do this, however, because API keys can be revoked in approximately half a second, and Flickr would be likely to revoke the key for a site like this regardless of whether it was well-behaved with its licensing.

[2] It may actually be fair use. Not for the reasons they cited, and maybe not for exactly what they're doing today, but I'd say it's certainly within the bounds where you could argue over nuance forever (or until a judge decides).
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
matt edited this topic 23 months ago.

Gary Hubbs | The Scale Gallery says:

I've started to spread the word a bit. I've joined and posted similar topics in the threads for Austin, Calgary and Toronto. There are 40 sites in all, not all of them pull from flickr groups (like Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal, for instance).

I've only been posting in groups from North American cities that pull photos from flickr groups; I don't know if copyright laws are too different off the continent. I'll post in more groups, but I'll have to wait until later today.

I don't know what effect if any this might have, but I figure that adding more squeaky wheels might make the collective voice louder somehow.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

Waxy: Slight correction to this statement from yours. You said:

"They own the website. They are responsible for what goes on there."

I'd say instead that they own the website, they're responsible for what they do on there. Yours implies a level of responsibility for the behaviour of their users (of which they actually don't have any), that I don't think you intended.

I know they don't have users, but that quote divorced from that piece of context is very scary.

Matt: I think you're way off base on [2], but thanks for providing the info on adsense violation.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

matt    says:

I think you're way off base on [2], but thanks for providing the info on adsense violation.

Bear with me while I give a hypothetical argument for the sake of explanation. Feel free to skip ahead.

It may be fair use because it seems to pass at least one of the tests used to determine fair use (in the USA) – does it decrease the value of the copied work? – Considering that the work being copied is a thumbnail-sized version displayed for free in many contexts, it's a hard case to make. There's some case law already on thumbnail-sized images being more available to fair use. Even if this site violates it, do all uses of RSS violate fair use? Is having ads enough, or does context matter? What constitutes "commercial" - making money? or actually engaging in some form of commerce? What about not-for-profit use? What about an aggregator that displays the images, for which people pay a subscription to use?

Airchinapilot    says:

I just quit this group and removed all my photos (and rejoined). Of course, they are still in that blog. So their BS about I 'control my photos' must mean I should have controlled my photos. My fault again bleah.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Airchinapilot    says:

Well, they wrote me back and are suspending their RSS syndication.
www.thatsvancouver.com/photo-posts/2010/07/

I wrote them that they should somehow get it working but filter it so that only CC (Creative Commons) -- and I suppose the version with attribution -- is used.

It's good that they responded.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

matt    says:

Well, they wrote me back and are suspending their RSS syndication.

I am honestly and sincerely shocked, but that's definitely good news.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
matt edited this topic 23 months ago.

Michael Kalus    says:

Actually CC alone won't be enough, mine are "Non-Commercial-Use" so unless they want to get a licensing deal with me mine are out as well.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

spiffytumbleweed    says:

Greetings from Austin, TX.

Gary posted to the Austin TX Flickr Group (which I cross posted to the Austin group) to let us know what's up...thanks Gary. After poking around a little and finding one of my copyrighted images used as content I decided that the owners of the site might not care about being regarded as scumbags, but their advertisers may not share that view.

The Sheraton Phoenix Downtown was the only hotel advertised on the site, and I left a message and request for a return phone call with the head of advertising and media. I'll let you know the results, if any, from that call. Moving on to the Travel Agents link, I called Miller Travel in Dallas and the woman I spoke with told me it was a two person office and she was certain that they had not placed an ad on the site. I e-mail her links and info and I'll share that too if I hear back.

It seems like an e-mail with a link to their ad sent to the small number of advertisers on this site could be effective. Folks would just have to write one note, in their own words, explaining how having their business associated with sleazy thieving bastards is not in their best interest, and simply cut and paste to each advertiser. Adding contact info for Longtail Web Publishing Network, the owner of the sites might be useful as well.

Hope you all have a fine weekend.

Spiffy T.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

cabbit    says:

I'm glad they've decided to stop using the RSS Feed, but I'm still going to insist on them removing all of my photos they've previously stolen.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

thatsorlando says:

Hello to the fans/haters of thatsvancouver.com

Let me start by saying we clearly disagree on this subject. That being said as adults I'm sure we can have a rational conversation about our disagreement.

1/ I don't believe I stole anything. My interpretation of the copyright rules are that the RSS feed allows for fair use especially as the content is intentionally syndicated as long as you a/ provide attribution, b/ use only as much of the original as required to get the point across (in this case the small image provided by the yahoo RSS), c/ you do not cause financial harm to the creator of the work. On this point we may disagree but the case law in this area can be interpreted in many ways. Keep in mind you mark the images as friends and family and then share to the group thus keeping the images out of the RSS feed.

2/ We may also disagree on the merits of the site itself but as creative people I'm sure others have disagreed with the merit of some of your work.

3/ I have endeavoured to respond and deal with this issue in reasonable and responsible ways.

4/ I am a real person doing real work just like you. I'm not some conglomerate, crazy-good-for-nothing or any other derogatory name you may have thought of calling me. I have a wife and two lovely daughters. I'm a real guy.

5/ It's great that the internet is available to all and that we can share our passions. It is somewhat unfortunate that some people would rather lash out then work to clear up a disagreement between real people. I am generally very transparent in my dealings on the Internet but this has highlighted to me that some people do not share my sense of civility.

6/ I'm assuming Matt knows something and may even be a programmer. Unlike for him it is non-trivial for me to figure away to use only the CC images via the RSS feed, in fact I think it's impossible. I will endeavour to find another way and if I can't then I guess I'll have to find another way to let people know about Vancouver and all the great things it has to offer.

7/ To those of you that saw your livelihood affect by the use of the RSS I apologize. I did not attempt to cause you financial hardship. I was doing what I thought was within the acceptable use of copyrighted works. So far this month thatsvancouver.com has generated about four dollars in adsense revenue. I'm not getting rich off the site.

If you'd like to contact me directly you are welcome to use the contact form on the site. www.thatsvancouver.com
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

thatsorlando says:

Rather than fight with anyone I deleted the entire database. I'm in the process now of reconstructing the site, including the non-flickr materials.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Richard Macdonald    says:

You may wish to remove your information on city hall as well. There was another BC website that had a lawsuit filed by their municipality because the inclusion of information on cityhall gave the impression that it was associated with said municipality.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

spiffytumbleweed    says:

Hi all,

I feel compelled to reply to thatsorlando, and then I'll be on my way as I have almost as little connection to this group as he has.

First off, Flickr, at its best is a community of people sharing their interests and imagination in both the on line and physical world. Flickr groups support and share with one another, and your complete lack of photos, contacts, or profile information clearly show you as someone who came to Flicker to take, not to share, not to contribute, and certainly not to join in a community. Since January of 2010, you have contributed nothing, yet helped yourself to the creative efforts of so many for your selfish interests. You seem to refer to yourself as a creative person, but what is creative about stealing the creative efforts of others...do you even own a camera?

It is great that the internet is available to all so that we can share our passions, but what have you shared, and what are you passionate about? Seriously, that is the question I most want answered.

You seems to imply that you are driven to let people know about Vancouver and all the great things it has to offer. Are you just as driven to find another way to let people know about (Austin, Baltimore, Berlin, Cleveland, Jakarta, and the entire country of New Zealand, etc.) and all the great things those places have to offer? Your hometown boosterism rings as hollow as the rest of your statements. Have you even visited all of the places you are claim to be so passionate about?

It is true that you are very transparent in your dealings on the internet and that is coming home to roost. It is clear, transparent even, that you have come to Flickr to take the creative work of others without their consent even when they have clearly stated their desire to control their creative works. You sir, are a parasite, lovely family and all.

Finally, why have you chosen to do the right thing only in Vancouver? The Austin site doesn't even have a contact form, a sure sign of someone who does not want to take responsibility for what they have done. You have disabled comments on the Austin site and offer no way for myself or others to object to what we clearly consider theft...why is that? If this is simply a matter of disagreement among people of good faith, what are you hiding from? How can we have a rational discussion about our disagreement if you hide from your own actions, on your own site with no mechanism for us to object, comment, or contact you?

Please drop the RSS feeds, enable comment on all of these sites, and provide a link for contacting you on all sites if you really believe or care about any of the statements you have made here. I have consented to the royalty free use of one of my images for a commercial website, and chief among my reasons for doing so was that they asked nicely.

Thank you Vancouver, and I apologize for ranting on your board, it was the only venue available.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
spiffytumbleweed edited this topic 23 months ago.

Jon LaChance    says:

thatsorlando: Good of you to respond personally.

Like spiffytumbleweed, I'm in Austin and share many of the sentiments of the Vancouver folks. I've always viewed RSS as a consumption tool, not something to be 'rebroadcasted'. I imagine the NY Times would take issue with someone republishing their RSS feed on a blog, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Gary mentioned how other blogs/sites have handled this and I think he's right on the money: create a new Flickr group and allow people to opt in.

An example of this model can be seen at austinist.com and they state in the rules for their group:

by adding photos to this group, you agree that we may post your photos (with full attribution) on our site.

thatsorlando says:

To the austin folks,

The feed is off and images are removed.

I was going to write more but my sense is that some people are not interested in rational discourse.

Jon LaChance, I liked Gary's idea and I may indeed do that. My goal is to find a solution that works.
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

matt    says:

It is somewhat unfortunate that some people would rather lash out then work to clear up a disagreement between real people.

Actions speak louder than words, and people doing real work simply do not post six-month old articles lifted directly from a newswire. Among other things; though not much point listing them, is there?

Regardless, that's the behaviour of a spammer, and that's the behaviour that defines you so far.

If you choose to defend that as "creative differences," then I'm going to choose to continue to believe you aren't and never have been acting in good faith.

Unlike for him it is non-trivial for me to figure away to use only the CC images via the RSS feed, in fact I think it's impossible.

code.flickr.com/blog/2008/08/25/api-responses-as-feeds/

Like I said, all you need is an API key.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
matt edited this topic 23 months ago.

Michael Kalus    says:

thatsorlando said:

“I'm assuming Matt knows something and may even be a programmer. Unlike for him it is non-trivial for me to figure away to use only the CC images via the RSS feed, in fact I think it's impossible. I will endeavour to find another way and if I can't then I guess I'll have to find another way to let people know about Vancouver and all the great things it has to offer.
”

sspyndel    says:

I sent this off to him after reading this thread, linked to the Calgary group ( thanks for the heads up )

" Yes, indeed, create your own group for these photos, and you will find volunteers. May I suggest something to encompass all major travel destinations rather than a separate group for each city / destination? At the very least by continent ?

Shmap asks permission before using any photos for their travel blogs. It's a sign of respect and integrity that they do, and as such, far more attractive to photographers. This IS our "art" and as such, prefer to be partnered with integrity. Especially when it comes to photos with our family members.. could you imagine your daughters childhood portraits decorating the rooms of a brothel? Or would you rather share them with the world in a high class gallery?

Make yourself that classy virtual establishment. And then life will have less irate artists virtually tearing down your walls.


I didn't see any of mine, but two flickrmeet friends have been posted.
I am a member of the 24 hours Vancouver group, and submitted pics to be used as photo of the day in the news.. but even they give me the option of which photos I would allow! With accreditation. Shmap recently emailed me asking to use a 150 x150 pixel image in their online guides.. again, full accredation, how I wanted to be credited as, and a link back. I was happy to say yes. They will also email me back if they publish that photo from their shortlist . Very credible. "Thatsorlando" should take a page from their books if he wants a piece of the online guide pie.
Originally posted 23 months ago. (permalink)
sspyndel edited this topic 23 months ago.

John Goldsmith    says:

The site is not linking to our photos anymore. What's surprising is that thatsvancouver now links to the VANOC site and they are using one of their copyrighted photos.

If anyone has the power to have the site shutdown, it's you know who.....
Posted 23 months ago. (permalink)

Gary Hubbs | The Scale Gallery says:

Still running with the curling story, eh? Fresh, timely, topical.

Spoiler alert: I think Canada might win a 14th gold medal. Just a hunch. Sorry to anyone who PVR'ed the hockey game and hasn't had a chance to watch it yet.
Posted 22 months ago. (permalink)

labrossephotography    says:

thatsorlando...

Clearly you need to investigate some copyright case law. You are making commercial web sites incorporating other people's creative work but not compensating them for it. It's like a bakery baking pies for the general public and not bothering to pay for the fruit in the filling of the pies.

'Fair use' has some pretty specific restrictions. Please note that most newspapers, magazines and current events websites pay for their photographs... newsworthy or otherwise.

I think it's time to revamp your business model.
Originally posted 22 months ago. (permalink)
labrossephotography edited this topic 22 months ago.