|
|
The few I looked at were ARR.
Suggest reporting to Google
services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http://newphototoday...
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
He's blogging them. Many would argue that his usage falls under fair use doctrine. He's not claiming them as his own.
And, I don't think his blog would be considered commercial. It's more editorial in my mind.
And I don't think ecstaticist can report it to google as the blog owner removed his photo when he was asked.
ecstaticist, I would suggest that if you don't want anyone to blog your photos, you set your "Blog This" permissions to only you.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I guess if he gets paid per hit, then he's profiting from using Flickr images.
That would need to be proved I suppose.
That outcome pending, it doesn't matter what the licenses are on the photos, they each have the Blog this button activated so are happy with their images being blogged ;-)
EDIT to add....I was checking each photo (on the first page) to see if the blog this button was there and if they all link back to the photo pages...which they do, while Brenda already said it ;-)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As has been stated before, including by staff, inclusion of the "blog this" button is not an automatic approval of use against the terms of the license.
In reverse, not having a "blog this" button, also does not mean an image can't be blogged, if the license allows. You just have to do it the old fashioned way.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The "blog this" button is irrelevant. As staff have said it was added as a convenience to able you to blog your own photos. I'm always amazed that people think that a web page with the appellation 'blog' gives the web page owner carte-blanche to steal content from wherever they like.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As I said in a previous thread, if I am presented a "blog this" button I don't think I'm doing anything wrong in using it for the purpose of blogging this. I consider it an explicit grant of permission beyond that granted by posting a public photo.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and you'd be wrong. there's no implicit permission granted for posting a photo publicly, nor for a button available. the terms are stated next to the photo. If you choose to ignore those terms, well we got laws for that.
availability is not the same thing as permission. Otherwise I would have gotten a lot more action in college.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm always amazed that people think that a web page with the appellation 'blog' gives the web page owner carte-blanche to steal content from wherever they like.
And I'm always amazed that people equate blogging with stealing.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
t was added as a convenience to able you to blog your own photos.
True, but if you don't want anyone to blog your photos, a good thing to do is to change your account setting that says:
Who is allowed to blog your photos?.
So, if you've got that account setting to "Any Flickr User", then, to me, you shouldn't be surprised if someone blogs your photo.
I know that Stewart has said that the Blog This button doesn't give implicit permission, but I would respectfully say that if it doesn't give permission, then the Account Setting should be renamed. I mean, it specifically says now "Who is allowed to blog your photos?". I'm sorry, but that, to me, is pretty clear cut. If people aren't allowed to blog your photos, change the answer to that question.
Or if that's not the right question, maybe Flickr should change the setting to "Who can see the blog this button" and spell it out in the FAQ that just because you see the Blog This button doesn't mean you can use it. This issue seems to come up so often it clearly needs some clarification.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I wonder what might give that impression?
www.fsf.org/blogs/rms
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then it's about time the Blog this button was only available to the owner for their own convenience.
Otherwise, licenses / rules aside, right now it's just one big contradiction.
This argument is going to continue for ever.
New members (and many old ones) will do the blog button thing in innocence because it is calling out to them to do it.
To many, it is an implied permission, irrespective of the license applied to the photo.
Maybe change the button to 'Blog this, only if you have the owner's express permission'.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What Brenda said ;-)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Or if that's not the right question, maybe Flickr should change the setting to "Who can see the blog this button" and spell it out in the FAQ that just because you see the Blog This button doesn't mean you can use it. This issue seems to come up so often it clearly needs some clarification.
There are a lot of bits that would help, like not putting 'public' on each photo next to the copyright notice. Still it is only a mitigation it doesn't absolve the blogger from the responsibility not to copy that which they have no permission to use.
That they assume that they can just copy any content they like into their own web log is a sad reflection on the times.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
t doesn't absolve the blogger from the responsibility not to copy that which they have no permission to use.
Of course it doesn't. But if the account setting says "Who is allowed to blog my photo?" why wouldn't a reasonable person interpret that as permission?? If you "allow me" to blog, isn't that the same as you giving me permission?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If someone can't figure out how to send an email to ask for permission to use something that doesn't belong to them, maybe they just aren't web savvy enough to deserve a blog in the first place.
Personally, I have nothing against most blogging, but then for myself I prefer the exposure and don't expect that much in the way of strict protection once I post something online (my first ever 10,000 view image, Jesus Riding a Dinosaur, was thanks to massive blogging).
But "blogging" is a late-to-the-party, made up word for something that's actually been around for a while: Publishing things on the internet. One guy's personal look-what-I-saw-today's diary is the same as CNNMoney's daily diary.
How a person feels about their image being used on joe-dull's diary, may be entirely different than how they feel about it's use on a megacorp-media-machine. Being able to pick and choose? priceless.
[Brenda. by your logic then the 'print this' button being visible means that anyone can just order prints of your images without asking. oh. wait.]
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If someone can't figure out how to send an email to ask for permission to use something that doesn't belong to them, maybe they just aren't web savvy enough to deserve a blog in the first place.
Again, why do I need to send an email to ask permission if the person has given me permission by "allowing me to blog the photo"? That's the whole point.
I could understand the issue if the account setting said, "who can see the blog this button?" but it says "who is allowed to blog your photos?" Just because Flickr chose to implement the permission via a Blog This button really doesn't matter. The button just makes it easier for people to exercise the permission they have been given by the owner of the photo who answered the question "who is allowed to blog?"
I know I'm repeating myself, but I feel strongly about this, can you tell? Call me pedantic, you won't be the first one. :)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
New members (and many old ones) will do the blog button thing in innocence because it is calling out to them to do it.
I'll grant that many are partially ignorant, but unless they have been so corrupted by the notion that everything on the web is free, they know that really they shouldn't do it.
Take this instance as an example, the OP complained and the image was removed, but none of the other ARR images in the blog have been removed. The blogger though is now under no illusion that they do not have the right to use those ARR images. How long before they get removed?
Then there was the dailykos issue a couple of months back over blogging AP sourced photos. The most interesting thing there was the discussion of how they might get around copyright.
www.dailykos.com/tag/Copyright/3
coming to the conclusion that an hotlinking was OK. IOW so long as you stole the bandwidth you could steal the image.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Walwyn, you have no problems with me blogging your photos, right? I mean, your account setting for "Who is allowed to blog your photos?" is set to "any Flickr user", right? And I'm any Flickr user, so I'm allowed, right? You've given me permission, right? And if you haven't, then I guess you haven't allowed me too, right? So, I'm allowed, but I'm not allowed. Which is it?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Again, why do I need to send an email to ask permission if the person has given me permission by "allowing me to blog the photo"? That's the whole point.
Because some photos are CC non-commercial so you need to make sure that your not a commercial blog and the attribution is correct, for starters.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why should it matter? You've given me permission.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've given you permission to blog the photo in accordance with the photo's copyright notice. Similarly I've given you the ability to download the photo so long as your usage is in compliance with the copyright notice. That you may be confused is not my responsibility, though it may weigh in your favour when comes to determining damages.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why am I getting a visual of a snake eating it's own tail at the moment ?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A good point:
True, but if you don't want anyone to blog your photos, a good thing to do is to change your account setting that says:
Who is allowed to blog your photos?.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why am I getting a visual of a snake eating it's own tail at the moment ?
That's the very reason that I NEVER blog anyone else's photos any more.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why am I getting a visual of a snake eating it's own tail at the moment ?
Because (fact) I used to have a snake called Ouroboros?
Permission to use the image lies in its copyright notice. GUI controls on web page do not modify those permissions.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What if it weren't a GUI control? What if the "Who is Allowed to Blog your photo?" choice in your account settings put a little notice on the bottom of the photo that said, "you are allowed to blog this photo"? Would that make a difference to the setting you would choose?
I just think Flickr should make it clear that the setting is not "Who is allowed to blog your photos?" but, who do you allow to blog your photos as long as they comply with your other restrictions?, maybe. Otherwise, we will continue to have this discussion over and over, because I do not think it unreasonable to equate "allowed to" with "have permission to".
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree with Brenda. It just seemed the common sense meaning that when I answered the question "Who is Allowed to Blog Your Photos?' with Any Flickr Member I gave permission. It's not that I gave up my rights, but that I exercised my right to give permission for a specific use to specific people.
I was surprised to say the least when I read Stewart's response - and given his statement, surprised that there has been no change in the wording. But given his on the record statement and the continuing confusion, I certainly hope the issue will be clarified before potentially millions of people come over in a short time from Yahoo and naively think they are allowed to blog and/or print photos they find here when the blog this and print this links are on the photo..
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda I think you are wonderful and the help and advice you give around here is priceless - but I do believe you are making some assumptions about permission that are just begging for trouble.
If anyone is allowed to blog but an image has ©All Rights Reserved then it would be prudent to get permission before making the assumption - anyone who studied science knows about assumptions, yes?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
He's blogging them. Many would argue that his usage falls under fair use doctrine. He's not claiming them as his own.
And, I don't think his blog would be considered commercial. It's more editorial in my mind.
Brenda said everything I was thinking in her first post, so I'm just posting to show my agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the license that is applied to photos on Flickr is a copyright license, which is subject to fair use-- as far as I can tell that includes All Rights Reserved. Yes, it would be polite to get permission first, and I probably would, but it is not required.
All photos on the blog link to their respective photo pages, which both comply with Flickr's Community Guidelines and is a darn good way to get traffic, however great or small, to your photo page. I feel that if you find his usage of your photos under these conditions unacceptable, they should probably be marked as private.
He's not linking to the full sized images, claiming they're his own, or selling reproductions in any way. The only thing I see that may generate an issue is the 1-800-FLOWERS advertisement under one of the photos currently on the page. If I was so talented as to have a photo appear on his blog, and it was featured with an ad, I'd probably contact him to request removal of the advertisement before the photo itself.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Many would argue that his usage falls under fair use
I don't think this would be true in the UK (don't know about the US) - here, as I understand, it you do actually have to have a genuine fair use - such as critisism or research where the image is actually illusrating, or the subject of some sort of discusion. Just reproducing on a blog with no discussion (especially reproducing lots of images) would not constitute fair use.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 said: do believe you are making some assumptions about permission that are just begging for trouble.
Well, we will just have to differ on this. I believe strongly that it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that a Blog This button is implicit permission to blog a photo, especially given the fact that the appearance of the button is controlled by the photographer.
It is just as reasonable an assumption that the a Print This button above a photo is permission to order a print of the photo. Or do you believe that a person shouldn't assume they are allowed to make a print of a photo just because the photo has a Print button above it?
You know, we've all had this discussion so many times (or at least it seems that way) and I think the best solution might be for Flickr to somehow pop up a box anytime you press the BlogThis button on someone else's photo that says "Make sure you follow any license terms specified for this image. OK" Or something like that.
Oh, and if anyone's in for some "light reading" have a look at this thread from 24 months ago by someone who was asking Flickr to "please let me turn off the Blog This button" because, as those of us who have been here a while will remember, the option to turn off the Blog This button (when it was eventually implemented) caused a lot of angst among the blogging contingent of Flickr users.
Perhaps that's why, in my mind, a button that can be turned off simply by answering the question "who is allowed to blog my photos?" can reasonably be interpreted as permission.
And, thanks for your kind words as well. I try to be helpful (most of the time). :)
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think this would be true in the UK (don't know about the US)
It isn't in the US either.
Brenda, all the button does is allow you to attach a photo to some text and post it as an entry to some website. Its sole utility is that it wraps up the html for you.
Why would anyone presume that it gives any more rights to the image than right clicking and choosing "Send image ..." especially as the more popular blog sites allow you to email an blog entry?
That said I've always agreed that it could be more clear, and adds to confusion. However, the thing that has any legal implication is the copyright notice. That is what one needs to adhere to.
Besides the 'blog this' button even has utility on an ARR photo if you have asked and got permission to use the photo.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Walwyn, I agree with what you're saying. Legally, the Blog This button gives you no rights...
My point, again, is that it is REASONABLE that a person would interpret the Blog This button as giving him permission to blog this photo.
I'm not arguing that the interpretation is "correct", just that it is entirely 'reasonable'. So, in my opinion, if you have a Blog This button on your photo, it would "unreasonable' for you to expect that the average person would know that they still need to seek your permission, especially given the fact that the button is optional. That's my point. Not everyone, as we all know, is clued up on copyright ins and outs. Some people may be more cautious than others and never blog anyone's photo, and others may make a reasonable assumption and blog yours.
*edit to add*
And can you imagine the scene if you took someone to court about copyright violation for blogging your photo?
Judge, here's the story: "This person posted my photo on their websiite... Yes, they linked it back to my own page... yes, they gave me credit for the photo ... yes, I posted it to a public site ... yes, that site bills itself as 'the best photo-sharing site' ... yes, they only had to click a button on my photo to add it to their blog ... yes, I had the option of turning off that button but I didn't ...
See where I'm heading?
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
See where I'm heading?
Of course which is why I said earlier "Still it is only a mitigation it doesn't absolve the blogger from the responsibility not to copy that which they have no permission to use."
Basically I think that it is a problem of the blogsphere. That there is a mistaken assumption that if its on the interweb it is there for the taking, as blogger rights supersede all others. If they'll take press photos, cut&paste complete articles, why not photos off flickr?
A growing trend is adding copyright music to a blog via p2p streaming, and I've seen a couple of instances of such linking on flickr photopages. Ironically enough on ARR photos.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whine whine whine. Copyright is amoral (and 90% of flickr users seem to ignore it anyway). So he links to some pictures, totally irrelvant. That there are corrupt laws which says you can own something that doesn't exsist doesn't mean you shouldn't just grow up and get over it. Go stop a war, or save someone from starving instead of moaning over something as irrleevant as someone linking to a piacture.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Simply turn off blogging , remove tag's , and put ( only You ). It should protect your photo's a bit . Downsize them before uploading to the world wide web. Nothing is safe on here. But you can do things to help protect your work a bit . Copyright is copyright . Also put ( all rights reserved ) to your photos that will give you a fighting chance if you find your photos else wear. Myself if I find photos of mine on someone elses site I politely ask them to remove. 99.9% of the time they will. Not everyone out there on the net mean's any harm. They simply just don't realise they making a mistake. For those who do know and refuse to take it down and you have ( all right's reserved ) then you file a copyright infringment . Also hide your photo's information helps.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
AMDM - photography edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Copyright is amoral
*snigger* you probably don't mean that *snigger*
Go stop a war, or save someone from starving
Go create some content for your own blog.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
tomato: perhaps you misunderstand how the interweb works. So far it isn't illegal or infringing in any way to simply link to a person's property/image. But taking that image, copying it and posting it someplace without permission, well now that's the thing that bothers some folk.
I'm amused how many so-called "bloggers" have such trouble with the idea of content ownership, yet rabidly defend their own blog's copyright and usage.
Posted 62 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't see what the big deal is.
The guy doesn't claim the pictures are his, he clearly says they are pictures he likes and he attributes them correctly.
What's the difference with bloggers who post one of their favourite poems every day?
If anything it's advertising for your work.
I also don't get how he would profit from your pictures?
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@dailydog: this is where the profit comes in.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What's the difference with bloggers who post one of their favourite poems every day?
Unless the poems are out-of-copyright probably nothing. Bloggers have great difficulty in understanding that their blog should only contain things that they have created themselves, or have permission to use.
In most cases all you have to do is ask.
If anything it's advertising for your work.
You don't get to chose how someone else promotes their work.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That NAMBLA blog may have great exposure among the 18-35 male demographic. not quite the advertising most people would be happy with.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm sort of confused how it's ok to include an image's URL in the href property of an A element but not in the src property of an IMG element. Neither one involves copying the image in any way, and I think you'd probably have a hard time convincing anyone in a US Court that copying the URL of an image in any way violates Title 17 of the US Code. How can I violate your exclusive right to duplicate a work if I don't duplicate it?
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
what are you talking about?
Where in here did it get to talking about a simple link to an image, as opposed to taking and displaying the image itself?
one is ok, one is not.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hello ecstaticist and all of you who posted to this thread.
I am the person you'r discussing here and I have to say few words about it, but first thanks to all of you who gave objective unbiased opinions to the issue , especially I'd like to thank Brenda Anderson for being objective.
firstly I have always done things in good intentions, I didn't mean to break any law " and I believe I didn't " , and when You ecstaticist asked me to remove the photo I did remove it , though I was not obligated to do so since I only blog photos that are presented with the " blog this " button which I understand as an explicit permission to blog them. so I think no one can say that I did a wrong thing by bloging a photo that the owner has given permission to blog " especially that he has the power to turn this feature off in his flickr account " why did he leave the " blog this " button if he wants every one to ask him before blogging it ... makes no sense , beside every time I blog a photo i leave a comment that I have posted this photo to my blog "
Now the other issue I see here is that " am I blogging the photos as a commercial process? " well the answer is clearly a big NO , since I never say those are my photos, every photo blogged has three backlinks that link to the original photo at flicker " the photo itself, the photo name and the " originally uploaded by " link " heck I am driving traffic to the flicker photos I blog. I never sell the photos , I don't offer my readers a print , and whenever my readers want to see a larger photo they click the photo and they are taken to the flickr page, you guys are benefiting from me.
the ads I am displaying on my blog are contextual ads , which means they are targeted depending on the available text " not photo " and they have nothing to do with the photos.
and if you want to report me you have to report yahoo too beacause if you do any search on flickr you will notice that they will display contextual ads right beside the photo results " would you say that flickr is using your photos for commercial uses ???? " try doing a search at flickr or see this search results at : www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=food&m=text
notice the ads at the left, is this commercial use of someones photos ?????
thank for all your contributions and forgive me if I disappointed anyone of you , and always remember to remove the " blog this " button.
sorry if you find any misspellings since I am not a native english speaker.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think that everyone agrees that the button can lead to confusion, and it is good that you comment the photo to say that its been blogged, so if anyone objects they have the opportunity to do so.
The non-commericial aspect doesn't only cover selling the image, but whether it is used in a commercial context or not.
As you say you're blog is displaying adverts based on the words and the words are descriptions of the pictures, in many cases the description comes directly from the photopage too. Thus purpose of the blog and the use of the photos is not non-commercial. See B3:
wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Gui...
In the case of Yahoo! we give limited permission to use the photos as a part of the TOS.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Where in here did it get to talking about a simple link to an image, as opposed to taking and displaying the image itself?
The Blog This button absolutely does not create a copy of an image, and the blog that's used with the button doesn't "take" anything except an HTML IMG tag that instructs a visitor's browser to visit Flickr to get the image and display it along with some other stuff. The only one making a copy of the image is the person visiting the blog in their browser's cache, and if that's illegal it's probably also illegal to visit your photostream at all.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's just a wildly wrong/libertarian/wild-west interpretation on how images are legally used on the internet. The location of where the copy of the image is coming from is completely irrelevent. No one cared where the Yahoo Wii page was getting its images (flickr servers), they were still displaying them against the will of the owners.
You could make a browser frame that was pulling in the actual news article page from CNN.com. Strip out all the CNN stuff, and wrap around it on your site all of your ads and whatnot. Technically you haven't copied the news article, you're just linking to it in a frame. and YET, it's still theft, still stealing from CNN.
Bottom line, aside from the technical vagaries of how the internet works; If the images are not displayed on the photographer's Flickr page, then license terms and/or permission is required.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i think his blog looks awful, the layout design makes a strong contrast to the content he 'stole'.
cheap.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No one cared where the Yahoo Wii page was getting its images (flickr servers), they were still displaying them against the will of the owners.
It was against my wii!
Among the many issues (in addition to whether the image is served by the server the copyright holder has it hosted on) are whether the site causing the image to be displayed by HTML is making money off the causing of the display and whether the site causing the display by HTML is lessening the value of the image being displayed.
Yet another issue is good will. Yahoo, as owner of flickr, probably has the legal right to display the images (I haven't read the Yahoo TOS vis-a-vis flickr in a long time), but because of the objections, Yahoo preferred to maintain the good will of the users, regardless of whether the CC license in place allowed Yahoo to display photos or whether the user had the all rights reserved copyright in place.
I wouldn't argue with anybody on whether any particular display by a web site is allowed or not, as the law still is unsettled on that issue. I think it's a problem to have the issues litigated under the Fair Use doctrine, because I think Fair Use as a doctrine is a disaster. My suspicion is that both Wooble and Searcher have positions with authority to back them up, and there's no telling how any particular court would rule on any particular issue.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It hasn't been determined in a court that what he is doing is wrong. What would need to be decided is whether Fair Use applys to this or not. My gut feeling is that it should, but considering how restrictive copyright is, and that most copyright owners just wish that fair use never existed, I wouldn't be surprised if its in fact illegal. Which would be a "bad thing" indeed.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The location of where the copy of the image is coming from is completely irrelevent.
it most certainly is not.
make a copy of the image and blog that, there's no way for the photo owner to alter or remove the photo short of a DMCA takedown notice.
display an image hosted on and the photo owner retains control over whether the photo is available or not, since they can change the image url at any time.
in terms of the amount of control available to the photo owner, there is a high degree of difference.
p.s. i hate it when people waste my time by asking me permission to blog my photo. a future marketing tactic will be using asking for photo use permission as "cover" for marketing messages.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
striatic edited this topic 61 months ago.
|
|
|
 p.s. i hate it when people waste my time by asking me permission to blog my photo.
I.e., "I wouldn't have the button there if I needed you to ask permission" ? :)
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
pretty much. i like that the button signals "don't bug me, just blog it" .. because i don't like being bugged, and i like being blogged.
if i WANTED to be bugged, i'd take the button down.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic: irrelevant to the point of whether it constitutes a legal/allowed use, not to the ability of self-defacing my own work to keep it off a blog. Perhaps I should have said "pointedly irrelevent" to keep out of your Gaze of Precision.
Civilized: yer right, more than once even. The Good Will Doctrine I think would work a lot better than the fair use one. So much of this hair-splitting and multiple interpretation of laws and exemptions and technology, wouldn't matter at all if people were just respectful and nice about things. what are the odds of that, unfortunately.
"it was against my wii""
heh.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
display an image hosted on and the photo owner retains control over whether the photo is available or not, since they can change the image url at any time.
Only by breaking the link to all uses. IOW to remove the link for an unlicenced blog one has to remove it for all blogs.
[The location of where the copy of the image is coming from is completely irrelevent.]
it most certainly is not.
I agree with this. In many cases where the image is served from has a cost associated with it. People pay for web space and may also have a monthly bandwidth limit. By hot linking, in addition to the using the image itself, you are using the other persons bandwidth. It is doubtful that the courts would accept a secondary offense as mitigation for the initial one.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I agree with this. In many cases where the image is served from has a cost associated with it. People pay for web space and may also have a monthly bandwidth limit. By hot linking, in addition to the using the image itself, you are using the other persons bandwidth. It is doubtful that the courts would accept a secondary offense as mitigation for the initial one.
I thought we were talking about images hosted on Flickr. I doubt the courts would accept a claim of "They're stealing Yahoo's bandwidth!" if the claim was made by someone other than Yahoo. Of course, I seriously doubt they'd accept such a claim even if it was made by Yahoo; otherwise you could sue every single person who visits your free public website for using your bandwidth. Good luck with that.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Copyright law isn't based around flickr TOS. Note that flickr only allows deep linking under certain conditions. Note also that you can be sued in court for deep-linking too:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking#Court_rulings
the exception being whether the use of the deep link is consider fair-use.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Copyright law isn't based around flickr TOS.
That's why I disregard any claims in forums saying that the "blog this" button means nothing. If a reasonable person would think that showing a button saying "blog this" means "you may blog this", then that's what it means and it's up to the photographer to give specific notice to the contrary if he doesn't want it blogged.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's why I disregard any claims in forums saying that the "blog this" button means nothing.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/33525/#reply171303
If a reasonable person would think that showing a button saying "blog this" means "you may blog this", then that's what it means and it's up to the photographer to give specific notice to the contrary if he doesn't want it blogged.
What the hell do you thing the copyright notice is then? If not specific notice as to whether you can or cannot use the photo without asking permission.
Sheesh some people.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Vox: by that logic the "send to a friend " link means that the photographer is granting permission for anyone to send any of their images to anyone else via email.
However, that link isn't there by choice, there's no option to remove it. Something even a "reasonable" person may not be aware of.
Actually, I find most "reasonable" people don't really understand how the internet or copyright works (me included sometimes), so I'm not sure the whole ignorance-of-the-law thing should be an excuse.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
what is this fuss about? a flickr member permits blogging and then when his/her picture gets blogged, a long discussion ensues.
Posted 61 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads