|
|
www.out-law.com/page-6660
A current case in which a judge says that Google's use of thumbnails to link to sites that benefit Google's bottom line is an infringement. In the other case, the issue was that the thumbnails lead to the originating site that had the copyright.
The commercial use of the thumbnails to drive traffic to Web pages that benefitted Google led to an injunction, by the way - the judge thinks the person suing Google will win.
The case is now on appeal:
www.eff.org/legal/cases/Perfect10_v_Google/
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mroth, thank you!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
that's great mroth.
serious question:
what sort of compensation will those who's rights were violated be receiving?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And ... mroth just IM'd me while I was typing (was going to say that we don't have all the details and will get in touch with the group who runs the site, legal team, etc., and see what's up).
But I'm in a small hotel in an Austrian village in the middle of the night and he's in the office in the middle of the working day, so he's better positioned :)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To those suggesting that the thumbnail is fair use...
Perhaps it is. But then it links out to the use of the full image on a site other than the one used by the author of the image. Surely the re-post of a full size, or at least more significant size image than just a thumbnail, image would fit into the "copyright violation" area.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, theoretically, the people who've had their non-commercial/all rights reserved licenced pictures featured (as thumbnails) on the yahoo site can sue (and stand a chance to win) even though Yahoo is now changing their practice?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The critical part of the Yahoo Terms of Service is in the part underlined below:
With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available.
To me, this means that if you submit a photo to Flickr, which for purposes of discussion must be considered a Yahoo! Group, they are free to use it, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE FLICKR CONTEXT. Using it outside that context is a violation of the ToS to my interpretation.
Methinks they are hoisted on their own petard!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So they are on top of the Wii site, but what is going to be done to make sure this doesn't happen (or isn't already happening else where on Yahoo) again?
Are we going to have to police random Yahoo pages forever, or are you guys going to have a sit down with every Yahoo design team before they put a flickr feed on their page and tell them what the rules are?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And as a person who has founght to have Flickr accpeted for use within my school I am disturbed that iamges my pupils have taken or that have been taken OF THEM could end up being used in this way! UK educators will know what a minefiled pupil images are at the best of times. Flickr is a cool resource for classroom use, but this incidence sets alarm bells ringing with me
What about a pic of a sports star or actor would they be seen to be endorsing a product if their image was used in conjunction with it?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, theoretically, the people who've had their non-commercial/all rights reserved licenced pictures featured (as thumbnails) on the yahoo site can sue (and stand a chance to win) even though Yahoo is now changing their practice?
Fair Use is a quagmire for which there are no answers, I'm sorry to say. There's no way to know how a court would rule, and if Yahoo loses, it'll appeal.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
civilized: but isn't the larger implication aimed at Google's Image Search? So the non-infringing use is for search results of the image to appear, via thumbnail, then clicking on it goes to the copyright holder's page. BUT the Google search page with the thumbnails is the page with Google ads on it, is the page that Google benefits from, and is quite similar to the fashion that the Yahoo Wii page is using them.
Yes they may be violating the API, but if they chose to not do it all auto with the tags, they could skip the API and instead have a wage-slave monkey go and pick twenty random Wii images, then post the thumbs of those with links to the Flickr pages, and they'd be totally in the all clear.
So there's two things going on here. One, they're violating the terms of the API, and people's copyrights via the API. But if they didn't use that, they'd be ok with how the images are being used on their page. jus' sayin'.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well I have screen shots for anyone who wants the evidence :D and like others I have left messages on the aggrieved people's photos.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think Yahoo is starting to realize that they just got pwned. Consumer wrath at its best.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mroth beat you to it, Stewart: www.flickr.com/forums/help/32752/#reply165536
And thanks, guys :)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The guerilla tactics seem to be working anyway. Any more screenshots anybody? :-)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I for one am happy to see that Flickr staff is getting this problem resolved. As much as I complain about the Yahoo merge, it's things like this that are the real danger. It's good to know that wrongs will be righted, even after the merge.
Yahoo is a big place, and I'm starting to think perhaps all its divisions don't communicate so well with each other.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
justj: the latter :)
BillPap yep, that's the main consideration. Using a thumbnail as the anchor of a link to content hosted elsewhere in its original context is a pretty widespread and accepted practice. (It's instructive to read the fair use analysis section of the Kelly v Arriba Soft page on Wikipedia.)
_bastian: the determination can only really be made by a judge, but I'd put the odds of anyone convincing a judge that this was not fair use would be about 0.00000% (I am not a lawyer).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And the more important point is: whether or not this use was legal (and I'm personally sure that it is), we'd like to operate at a slightly higher level than mere compliance with the law. You can count on this being the center of many interesting internal conversations!
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Stewart: Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the issue seriously.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How is it that the team that works for wii.yahoo.com are not aware of the TOS both Yahoo! and Flickr use?? That's a pretty GIANT oversight. Do other Yahoo teams follow "different" Yahoo TOS agreements then the rest of us?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this really stinks. what creative commons license, hopefully not the noncomm because as others have pointed out this is a blatant commercial use
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart obviously set this whole Wii thing up so he could look like a hero.
Which he is.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart:
'And the more important point is: whether or not this use was legal (and I'm personally sure that it is), we'd like to operate at a slightly higher level than mere compliance with the law.'
I think to me personally that is the bigger issue... Flickr already has a black eye right now, and this only added fire to so many of the anti Yahoo feelings...
We like flickr for the community, we don't like Yahoo for being corporate scum...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All Flickr users should make ALL their photos PRIVATE so nobody can use their photos, commercial or not.
What Yahoo did is something that has been done by a thousand other sites (e.g. PopURLs, etc.).
Anybody can access Flickr 's API and create a feed of somebody else's photos. I guess Flickr should close down its API too.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good follow up by staff. Especially the "going beyond legal" point.
Thanks, the fact that those who run Flickr care about the community in issues such as this is one of the reasons I like Flickr -- and hopefully the belief that a lot of people respect that isn't lost in this lame "OMG I have to use a different userid in this textfield and can't tag spam!!!111" mess.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Guys, please consider that the difference in getting only pictures under the CC, CC by-sa and CC by-nd licenses is so tiny that may be the web developer left to put it later and forgot. "The difference is less than this last phrase of mine, ok?"
Also I'd consider fair-use, even considering that I'd better use photos I was allowed by the author. Now you who are yet upset couldn't just sit down and think that this may be even free marketing for you? Or don't you like it also? Come'on, let's not burn our brains with this detail...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really hate to think that I need to switch my Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License pics to All Rights Reserved just to attempt to "protect" myself from this sort of abuse.
Let's be damn sure that NonCommercial means what it says.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I posted about this in Technorati's 'where's the fire' section.
www.technorati.com/wtf/yahoo-flickr/2007/01/31/yahoo-expl...
You might want to vote for that post here - to keep it high profile :D
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now you who are yet upset couldn't just sit down and think that this may be even free marketing for you? Or don't you like it also?
You really don't get it, do you.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
btw by www.DaveWard.net, maybe you better want to forbidden the users to post your photos on blogs... Just a tip if you're really upset with this.
Come on, guys... The world isn't perfect...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
roaddc: Anybody can access Flickr 's API and create a feed of somebody else's photos. I guess Flickr should close down its API too.
You can always opt out of the Flickr API.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Stewart for the replies. Of course the other side of that coin, of wanting to be above mere "legal", is the quick smack a living community can bring to a site doing things they don't want, but using an easily manipulated tag feed. Screenshots of examples were so.. tame. I'm surprised there wasn't a sudden surge of temporarily public genital close-ups with "wii" tags flying through their supposedly kid-friendly nintendo page.
maybe next time.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The # of pictures has dropped to around 2200. Steve's cat pictures and some landscapes are still there though, lol. Good job.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
view-askew edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
a blog isn't used to sell toilet paper or gameboys
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Stewart
same as youre personally sure it was legal i am absolutely sure it was not legal.
It is to question if Flickr/Yahoo is following the law during the operation of their services.
Since WII is not part of Flickr it would be interesting to hear who allowed the programmers to access the restricted pictures.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> "we'd like to operate at a slightly higher level than mere compliance with the law."
Thank you for your input on this, Stewart. While I trust that you feel this way, I have nowhere near the same faith in Yahoo, and this is why people like me are so upset. Yahoo has shown in testimony before Congress and in its dealings with the Chinese government that it does not concern itself with ethical obligations in any way whatsoever. For me, this issue is just an illustration of that and an indication of what kind of respect photographers can expect Yahoo to extend toward their creative property.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Adam Lawrence, if wouldn't make difference. The error is that either the developer didn't knewn about the terms of service of the Flickr's API or he/she forgot to request only photos he could use commercially (what is a tiny detail, as someone that has used the API before I swear it's a detail that you can easily forget!)... Changing to 'all rights reserved' won't change anything.
_bastian, I got, but I don't see why to worry too much from a flood just because someone left the glass of water drop on the floor. This discussion could all be summarized to a 'hey, your dudes from Yahoo! are using user photos without being allowed to do so, could you please immediatly talk to them and - being dramatic - block their access until they solve it (what is quick to do once someone is able to look at the code)?'
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Opting out of the API feed, thanks for the heads-up.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
henrique,
i understand what you're saying, but the level of violation would be harsher. a "mistake" could still be made, but the minutae of distinction between cc licenses will clearly be something these developers won't bother to learn or respect.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd just like to point out that this whole thing was fixed - after someone pointed it out - within 3 or so hours. That's pretty damn good.
This is why I still think that Flickr has one of the best online communities and staff out there.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey everyone, here's a thought - if you currently have any pornographic or offensive images in your stream, tag them with "wii".
Let's see how they like that...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
first off, that's my thought, and its copyright, so hands off.
and second, make sure you make those images public, and set the CC license to the most-open one, that's what they're using currently.
(ps, don't get yourselves into trouble tho, there's plenty of semi-naughty images allowed in public spaces on flickr, that would be huge no-no on a kid-friendly yahoo game page, so don't get your own streams in danger by making icky images public that shouldn't be.)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
or this...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oh crap! you made it square! nice.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>"I'd just like to point out that this whole thing was fixed - after someone pointed it out - within 3 or so hours. That's pretty damn good.
This is why I still think that Flickr has one of the best online communities and staff out there."
Uh, I highly doubt that the "whole thing (is) fixed"- if Yahoo's lawyers determine that they can continue to violate photgrapher's rights regarding their works, they will continue to do so. Don't mistake Yahoo protecting its interests with protecting ours. I mean, did they suddenly remove some 38,000 photos because they realized they were wrong, or because it made them look like idiots and brought the threat of lawsuits?
That's why I said they were rotten to the core, because their corruption is institutionalized and ethics do not weigh in to their decisions. In no way should Yahoo's response time to this issue be considered an auspicious sign.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Searcher, the concepts of "pornography" and "hands off" seem diametrically opposed...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Flickr and Yahoo! FAQs probably need a succinct addition that will cover quite a lot:
Q: Why does Yahoo! [insert objectionable practice here]?
A: Because they can.
Q: What can I do to stop it?
A: Absolutely nothing.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ShanePapaDiesel, not here at Flickr, please...Stop the trolling...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What the hell are you talking about, Henrique? I have to agree with _bastian on this one, you definitely don't get it.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If your photos are all rights reservered, I certainly hope that a real professional (ie has enough money to afford a good lawyer) photographer here will start a class action that any Flickr could join to stop the abuse of copywritten materials by a service paid to store said materials. 'Very soon' removal of non-CC photos is not fast enough - breaking a copyright is breaking a copyright pure and simple and the people who conceived of that effort to start with had to know that using copywritten images was wrong - but then went ahead and did it anyway to see what the reaction would be. Do we have to constantly police the service we are PAYING to store our photos to make sure they are not stealing them??? Also even most CC licenses would not approve of the COMMERCIAL use of photos - I cannot see how any Yahoo public page could possibly claim they are not being commercial users of these PRIVATE photos which they are in most cases being PAID to HOST on their servers by Flickr users.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
firechick, couple of problems with your thesis there. One, Flickr isn't for "storing" your photos, it's for sharing. So the systems in place to facilitate sharing, like the API, can be abused, but maybe a little leeway on your part (because it was "very soon" that the Yahoo page stopped using the wrong licensed images, within 30 minutes of a staffer talking to them) since you're part of a photo-SHARING community, not a storage facility.
Two, they weren't "private" images at all, they were public images available on Flickr. And in spite of their change, as has been discussed, they were likely using them in a completely LEGAL way, since they weren't posting your images, just the thumbnails of your images, in the very same way that Google ImageSearch does. The link from them goes right to your page on Flickr. Your PUBLIC, SHARED, page.
I think the vigilante approach at work here is best, make them just constantly show embarrassing content, as long as they want to take advantage of us, we can take advantage of them.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher is right. If you don't like this, just take a bunch of pictures of your butt (or other content Yahoo and Nintendo don't want associated with the Wii) and tag it Wii. Much more effective than hiring lawyers or sending letters.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Not wanting to be boring, but...
ShanePapaDiesel, of course I have got it. What I am trying to tell is that you are too much upset because of a human error that even would not put anyone's life in risky.
1st. It is not Flickr's fault. It's the fault of a Yahoo! web developer who probably was not too alert to this detail when he has constructed the call to Flickr's API (which anyone can use, be said).
2nd. Is it morally fair to sue someone because of such error? Before that I recommend you to STOP taking photos of artwork and buildings which design has not already fall under public domain or the copyright holder licensed under a compatible license...
Ma'an, it's so pathetic... If they didn't care it was a reason, but they cared in just 3h and under heavy machinery attack in opposite to in a peaceful way... This way, my friend, it's better not to use the Internet [nor any other advanced technology which can put your loved all rights copyrighted holdings in danger].
Enough for me. I'll show you what is the difference in the call to say we want only photos under a determined license:
license -> x, where x is a number from 1 to 5 and it's not a mandatory parameter.
A tiny error in a new site for a big confusion, eh...? I'm afraid no one won a sue from Microsoft because their software's security sucks and you can lose/have stollen important data because of it, but because of this indefensive line...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now telling what I really feel about this all: if you are afraid of sharing, go off-line. If you are just happy because of an opportunity to sue or to see someone being sued, I'm so sorry for you.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Again, Henrique, you appear to just not get it. I'm not going to sit here and rehash every argument that has already been made, but that is what you're asking of me. Please read the other thread- the "Official Old Skool Merge Topic"- it is long, but I read every post on there, and there are many valid concerns raised that were never addressed, including mine about tracking cookies, an egregious privacy policy that says our information becomes Yahoo's property when we log into their service (this was a big news story for about a day a few months ago, then it disappeared as this will, sadly) and a willingness and explicitly stated "right" to hand our information over to businesses and government alike (with or without warrant or subpoena).
With this flagrant disregard of our privacy and encroachment upon our ownership of our own personal information, how on earth can you pretend that our creative works are secure in the hands of Yahoo?
And stop grasping for straw men. I responded to a post that naively took Yahoo's response time as a sign of good faith, when anyone with a brain knows the real reason they acted so quickly. And you accused me of attacking Flickr, being sue-"happy" (far from it), and "trolling" (do you even know what that means? because by most definitions, you would be the one "trolling" in this thread).
If you wish to respond to the issues and assuage our concerns without the red herrings and inverted morality, that's great. Otherwise don't waste my time anymore.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
ShanePapaDiesel edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Damnit. I'm not going to let pictures of my kids be used to sell video games, or whatever piece of crap yahoo is selling this week. It's obvious that the Flickr people have lost control of the helm.
I'm beginning the purge.
Edit: Done. That was sad.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
meatstack, now just a yahoo number edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm one of the engineers who built the Wii site. First I'd like to appologize on behalf of the Games group to anyone who had a problem with the use of the Flickr thumbnails as part of the site. We had no intention to cause any unrest within the Flickr community, honest. :)
Truth is, I'm a huge fan of anything game-related, Nintendo products especially so. When the opportunity to work on a Wii-specific site arose I jumped at it. When it came to site features and implementation there wasn't much directive to do things one way or another. Instead about six of us, the people doing the actual work, were only asked to create a place for fans to experience the Wii in new and exciting ways.
It didn't take long to think how great it would be to have an ever-changing, Wii-centric stream of photos integrated into the site. I knew I'd love to see something like that (and I did, too).
We spent a fair amount of time researching what was acceptable use and what wasn't. We wanted to showcase and share people's passions for the Wii, not exploit it. In fact, we made the conscious decision early on to NOT post actual photos on the Wii site and instead link from the tiny thumbnails directly to Flickr, even though we would be throwing people 'over the wall' so-to-speak without any method for them to get back to our site. Not a particularly good traffic-boosting decision, you can imagine. :) But we thought it paid some respect to the owner and their content, something we always kept in mind.
Anyway as several people have mentioned, I still believe that using the thumbnails to link back to Flickr is a legal use, but I don't really care. I gladly restricted the license to CC the minute the Flickr team contacted us and we saw how people were reacting. Not some lame attempt to save corporate face in light of the flame-fest but to show that we do pay considerable attention to what you think and want.
I'd still very much like to see and share more of your Wii images with the world, so tag it Wii and mark it CC if you want to participate. :) Do me a favor though; polluting the 'wii' tag with irrelevent (or worse, derrogatory) images isn't just a jab to the wii site, it ruins the tag for everyone on Flickr too.
Thanks for reading my ramble. :)
(these are my off-the-clock opinions, by the way; I'm not in a postion to speak on behalf of Yahoo in an official capacity)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the honest feedback here - that counts for a lot.
In every job I've worked, there was no such thing as off-the-clock-opinions on my work product. I hope you don't get in trouble with management or legal. =(
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yes, thanks for the feed back. you are not at fault, the people at fault are your managers, who should have told you to be careful with the licensing terms before using photos, even thumbnails, in this commercial page.
> even though we would be throwing people 'over the wall' so-to-speak without any method for them to get back to our site
try the BACK button? :)
> Do me a favor though; polluting the 'wii' tag with irrelevent (or worse, derrogatory) images isn't just a jab to the wii site, it ruins the tag for everyone on Flickr too.
there is no way you can be certain that a photo tagged with "wii" has any relation with the Wii nintendo machine. "WII" could be the initials of someone, or some personal acronym. and even if the tag "nintendo" is present, there is no guarantee, so i'd recommend that you screen the photos or be ready to have unpleasant or unwanted images poping-up occasionally.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Looking forward to the "Inappropriate Tagging Endorsement" in the next TOS update...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Looking forward to the "Inappropriate Tagging Endorsement" in the next TOS update...
i was not talking about tag abuse (that's something i don't like), but just the fact that WII can have other meanings, e.g. as simple as someone's initials, or the letter W followed the roman number 2, e.g. "W II". this would be the same as the "wii" tag for search results.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Quick question for luke_derossi - why not just ask users first?
If you'd approached those with images tagged "wii" instead of just loading the images up regardless, there would have been far less angst...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dr. Keats edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
sorry loupiote, you beat me to it. i was referring to the webdesigner...
& insert belated sarcasm tags...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd reiterate that I still consider the use of the thumbnails in the manner we did to be perfectly legal and it would take a lot for me to change that belief. :) But that's not the issue here at all. We didn't change the license today for legal reasons, it never even came up.
We thought we were endulging other Wii fans' desire to share their pictures and passion. For some people that was obviously a wrong conclusion, and we wanted to respond and correct it as quickly as possible.
Personally I don't mind seeing images tagged 'wii' that aren't in any way relevent to Nintendo's product if they really deserve to be tagged 'wii' for another reason. I actually think it's kind of cool to 'cross the streams' occasionally. But diluting 'wii' or any tag with contents that have no reason to be tagged that way is a disservice to Flickr and an abuse of a tagging mechanism.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And it wouldn't be happening if you guys had just asked wii fans for use of their images rather than assuming that because it was legal it was OK with the individual users...
They're not the same thing...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Luke - you need to stop while you're ahead.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Keats, that's a good question. It's fairly easy to conclude that individuals uploading images flagged 'public' on a photo sharing site (that offers freely accessible APIs to pull and display its content) are agreeing to and even wanting their images shared.
There are other models to explore, such as only pulling photos from a group made explicitly for the site, or only images uploaded through the site, etc. This was the first of its kind, we're learning as we go. It doesn't do us any good to provoke our users like this. :)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Luke - You know I would really, really be surprised if any of the whinerati who have posted in this thread had a photo tagged "wii" before the campaign of civil disobedience started.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
well, well, well, stewart... you said i was 'ridiculous" for suggesting tight defaults in posting images, rather than loose ones a few months ago. one of us presaged this sort of event... hmm... who was it?
stewart, the right fix is that all uploading be set to ARR and then people can ACTIVELY DECIDE whether to allow their pics to be used under CC, not have to play catch-up after the fact.
between this and the "23" debacle... well... let people choose to share broadly, don't force them.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
listen to the force (aka Eric in SF) luke
it was good what you guys did, but trust me you do not want to get into
1. a tag debate
2. fair use debate
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i would agree with ellipse here...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know Eric, I'm a glutton for punishment. But I'm sincere in at least trying to give some insight to how this happened and not just drop a flowery appology and run.
I also know I'll never be able to give a satisfactory explanation to everyone, but if people have legitimate questions without just intending to badger, I'd like to answer if I'm able. Strictly from my own perspective and not Yahoo's of course. ;-)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Luke, thanks for writing. I don't think anyone has a beef with you or wii. Your site just happened to be the bellwether for the "brand universe" experiment, and confirmed our worst fears regarding Yahoo's plans for our privacy and creative content. While your intentions may have been good, I am surprised (as loupiote mentions) that no one at Yahoo raised the issue that we might be displeased at the prospect of our images being used in a commercial way. It was no stretch to imagine someone's family photos appearing on a McDonalds.Yahoo site, or in any other form of advertising that we didn't want to be a part of. It may have been an honest mistake, legal or not, and I'm glad that your concerns were pure in removing the copyrighted images, but again... the fact that your managers never raised this issue falls right in line with the lack of trust we feel toward Yahoo.
@iansand: brilliant observation. how naive and corrupt of us to make a point about copyrighting issues in the only way that would carry any weight.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Luke: thank you for what you've said. I appreciate it.
Oh, and you're forgiven :-)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ShanePapaDiesel Why do you think what you are doing carries any weight (particularly as I believe that Stewart and Luke are perfectly correct about the legal position).
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
First, props to Luke for coming in here to explain. Any attempts to get at the reality of a web site design (small team, tight deadlines, minimal oversight) were falling on deaf ears, so putting a human name and words to what went on goes a long way to deflate the evil empire out to plunder us all sturm and drang around here.
However, you do need to realize there are many differences between "public" images and images available for commercial use. In fact I think both sides of this debate need to spend a little time to better understand the available licenses. On Flickr's side, the licenses are pretty explicit for how the images can be used outside of Flickr, with only a couple that allow for commercial use. To assume images you find on the internet are up for grabs is a recipe for getting into trouble.
On Luke and the Wii page's side, I believe he's right, and no one's actual images were being used, but in fact only the thumbnails were, which so far is all fair use (but only as long as the linking to the flickr page is maintained.) The fact that no one wants to stand on what's legal, but instead on what's expected and right, is to be commended. But also, on Luke's side, once he corrected the images chosen, Flickr users have to realize that certain licenses, most of the CC licenses, do NOT require permission first. The point of them is to share without having to ask first.
So mistake aside, pulling in properly licensed images randomly is the way the whole thing is supposed to work.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand: the issue was noted pretty quickly and the site changed, didn't it? would an e-mail have accomplished that so quickly?
and if you're right, and it turns out to be legal, there is no reason to believe that yahoo will refrain from doing the same thing in the future (regardless of where luke's ethics stand). and so the same action will be warranted again if people don't want their photos usurped.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually.....Dr. Keats makes a good point. Why not ask first. I don't say this to be flippant, but you could actually create your own unique tag and go to Flickr Staff and ask them to maybe post something on the FLickr Blog about it...asking people who would like to particpate to use the unique tag on their Wii photos. This would greatly combat tag abuse as the people whose photos were used wanted it that way.
You'd most likely get a much better quality of images as well.
Just a thought.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then, ShanePapaDiesel, perhaps you will join my campaign to let the world know that there is nothing to see here, and moving along would be appropriate. You could even say thank you to Luke, if you want.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Shane: Actually I really hope this has a very substantial impact on things moving forward and I'll certainly be doing what I can to make it felt internally. I'd rather we allay those worst fears, not confirm them.
I'm going to tip-toe around the issues of fair-use as I've been counciled now many times in addition to not to fighting a land war in Asia) not to get into a debate about fair use and tag abuse. :)
I would only say that the perspective on what Flickr is, what it offers and how it can be used is obviously not universally shared. No manager or otherwise brought the issue up because we all saw our implementation as community participation, not exploitation, for example. But we now have a pretty good reason to reconsider that original perspective and I'd like to believe we'll remember it going forward.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I hope so too, Luke. My concerns with logging in to Yahoo go beyond this issue, to ethical issues that are highly unlikely to be resolved through flickr, but I would like to see an official policy that addresses this problem so those of us who remain here (unlikely in my case) have one less thing to worry about.
I admire you coming on here and displaying a real interest in what we think. I hope that concern makes its way into internal discussions at Yahoo. But I am highly skeptical; and I believe that as long as this practice is legal (if it is), Yahoo will continue to use it if it appears profitable. If they are willing to force those of us raising hell in these forums to sign in through a Yahoo ID or quit, I find it unlikely that our concerns regarding the use of our images will be heeded by those at the top (again, assuming that these activities are legal). I hope I'm wrong.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I'm not going to be back with my discussion as it progressed here and I feel that it's unnecessary to be back to there...
Why not to ask first?
The idea is to show a photostream of thumbnails which tags are related with the Wii, so it won't make any sense to 'ask first'. It'd be a waste of time to ask for a photo to be used on a photostream (which is supposed to feature lots of random photos per day). To say, technically it's non-attractive.
About the fair-use I agree. After all, it's basically LINKING (what imho it's ok), but with a thumbnail in place of a text. One important point also is that if your photo was found that means you have given Flickr to put it on its search engine * (yes, you can hide it). So that means that you allow it to be searched. In a not legal way I'd say that if you allow it to be searched, you probably don't care that it may be view by people you don't known, your mom, etc [on Flickr] ;)
So you also make it possible to be viewed by the API...
For me that's enough to think that it's fine that it can be searched 'from the outside of Flickr' once its public (yet I don't known the ToS enough, nor I can give legal advice).
* If I'm wrong at any point, tell me. I'd appreciate.
PS: day 25 of past month I was asked for a Yahoo! guy from Anwsers if I could let him use one of my photos at the site yet even it was set up as under Creative Commons-Attribution. I mean, they do not only respect the copyright, but for a use 'more staticly' even asked if I had any concerns that made me feel better if they didn't use it.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, if I have to create Yahoo! userids, at least I get to have some fun (wicked grin):
distrustthepeople@yahoo.com
fightthestupidity@yahoo.com (fightthedarkness was taken)
freetheflickr@yahoo.com
and my personal favourite:
I'm on a roll, I tells ya....
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
(yet I don't known the ToS enough, nor I can give legal advice).
So why don't read them and think again?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm still a little dissapointed with Luke's response. It just shows how little understanding yahoo have. As several posters have repeated said, nobody wants their photos used to sell products and services. Flickr is a community where control and privacy are exercised by the users of the site, not the administrators. Yahoo can hide behind the defence that they haven't done anything illegal, but the emotional response of these past posts shows how people feel that these issues of privacy and use of personal photos have been ignored by a company that just wants to up their hit rate, and in end, everyone will equate hits with making money. we didn't add our photos to flickr so that people could use them commercially, so why go down that road.
As for luke's assertion that the wii.yahoo site is not selling you anything...really, beggar's belief.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
stephan caspar edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
STAFF UPDATE: "Update! I have spoken with the team working on wii.yahoo.com and they are going to be changing the site to only use images with appropriately licensed Creative Commons photos effective very soon. " -- mroth
I have to ask what exaclety is CC about the use on the WII web site, yahoo is making a profit from our images there for brakeing the CC licence as they are using them to make money.
CC is about non comercial use, not mega coperations making millions.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, dots and spaces, I don't at all mind my images being used to sell products and services - so long as I get suitable recompense for said use...
Want to use my images, Yahoo? PAY ME!
Not hard to understand...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
CC is about non comercial use
Only those CC licenses that include the "non-commercial" provision. Plenty of photos have CC licenses that allow commercial use.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hehehehe easy to boycot stuff like this ... >:) Just tag non wii pics with wii tag.
[EDIT] Apparently many people already did this ;) [EDIT]
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
absolutely Dr. Keats
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If the people on the wii team were a bit sharper they would have realised that using clusters instead of just tags would have avoided at least some of the guerilla tagging...
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Abhorsen CC is about non comercial use
It depends whether you set non commercial use in your license (as most people do.)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Luke_D says...
We spent a fair amount of time researching what was acceptable use and what wasn't.
Then you must be pretty bloody thick not to have worked it out.
polluting the 'wii' tag with irrelevent (or worse, derrogatory) images isn't just a jab to the wii site, it ruins the tag for everyone on Flickr too.
I think it's a bit too late for that now. You've already done that with your vile site.
One question for you.
If there's no money in it for Yahoo, why are you doing it?
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just a couple more things:
firstly, thanks to mroth, Luke & Stewart for taking action. It does show you listen, which is a good thing.
From my perspective, I have no problem with my public images being public (they're mainly snapshots & not much use to anyone) - but as soon as they used for commercial purposes, well that crosses a line for me.
Granted, with some API applications that line is a bit blurry whether its fair use or commercial use, (legally or ethically), but as owners of this site, the behaviour of Yahoo & Flickr must be held to a higher standard.
Its also instructive to consider what would happen if Google had an API key and built a similar site. - I'm sure Flickr would have pulled their API key straight away.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
After seeing this I'm out. Yahoo, you really rot my wh@le!
(Indicating that the Old Skool law has been ripped apart in whole)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can't help it, I know I shouldn't laugh as this is a serious matter, but this made me smile : (seen on the wii.yahoo.com homepage)
www.flickr.com/photos/digilee/368161449/
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This is really a disturbing turn of events...I have until June to think about it....
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Grogg Fame awaits You can be first (sorry Sweet Distin - I just don't think you have the commitment we need.)
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just throwing out a suggestion here, it may have already been made, it may already be implemented, and it may indeed be a load of bollocks, but why don't you limit commercial API key apps to only be able to see commercially CC'd images?
If you want to see the non-commercial ones, you have to create your site, send the URL to Flickr staff and have it approved.
That would cut out the sites that use it through ignorance and/or lazy programming.
In fact, why not firm up the API distribution in order to do that by default on all? It's then admittedly more of a hassle to create API apps, but not that much more than creating an app in the first place. A few sites I have created require approval from the API providers before you go live. It's just one extra step in creating a site.
Posted 65 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads