|
You searched for all, rights, reserved, blog and this.
Copyright considerations when using flickr photos on blogs
|
I have a blog where occasionally, I'll include a photo I've found on Flickr that I feel adds to the mood of what I'm writing (I'll set my img src to the download link provided with the Flickr photo). I write the name of original contributer of the image under the it and link to the image page on Flickr for attribution.
So far I've done this with only images that fall under the Creative Common license.
My question is, can I do this with images for which All rights are reserved.
Posted at 9:18AM, 12 May 2007 PST
(
permalink
)
|
|
Try here: www.flickr.com/help/forum/39674/
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Also, no.
"All Rights Reserved" means exactly what it says. the owner of the image has reserved all rights to it. You would need permission for anything you'd want to do. However, many people would probably be fine with a simple blog use, if you ask them.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The owner of an image can't reserve rights he or she doesn't have. I could claim I have the right to be paid $1 billion by anyone who reads this (copyrighted) comment, but that doesn't mean I have that right.
Show me a law that says a creator of a work has an exclusive right to create links to that work on the Internet. Or better yet, read the decision in Kelly v. Arribasoft and save yourself the time in trying to find a law that doesn't exist.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The owner of an image can't reserve rights he or she doesn't have.
I'm missing the post where someone says that.
One of the sections of the US copyright statute says, in part:
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
***
(5) in the case of ... pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly;
While I wouldn't argue about providing a link to a work, I'd question whether I can display another's work publicly (on my blog, for example) - provided the owner of the copyright in the work has reserved all rights, including that section (5).
In addition to Kelly v. Arriba Soft, I'd suggest reading Perfect 10 v. Google. I'm comfortable that the law is unsettled, and that I wouldn't bet my farm on the outcome of any case where photos are displayed on someone's blog.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hi
I just joined Flickr 24 hr comp, my first. Its been amazing had over 1940 views 68 call a fav, awesome, allot of people added me a s a contact, but I received an email that concerned me:
He asked was I worried my photo's were not "copywrite" and was I not concerned about people downloading my photo's and using them as their own!!! Can this be done??? I would dearly welcome any feedback as its worried me a tad!! via email or I will check back here as time difference you'll prob be in bed, but I would be very grateful for any feedback. you all seem to know your stuff many thanks.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Your images are marked "All Rights Reserved". Unless you've recently changed them all to that from something like a Creative Commons licence, anyone wishing to legally use them needs to ask you for permission (except perhaps for blogging).
The person who contacted you and claimed that they weren't "copywrite" sounds like something of a twat, or just one who has no idea what he's talking about...
So far as downloading them, you can't stop it - if someone can see the image on their screen, they can save a copy, It's not brain surgery.
If you seriously want to stop people from downloading and using the images, you've got two options:
1) Disable the Download option in your Account settings. Only upload images as "small" or "medium". Add a basic copyright notice on the image itself, something like "Copyright 2007 kiwimission", etc.
2) Don't upload anything you don't want others to have...
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I just noticed that you have a 'Send to a friend' option here. So, even if everything is all marked "All Rights Reserved", the receiver of that emailed photo could use it anyway he/she likes. It's easy to claim, it was emailed to me. ?
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Disable the Download option in your Account settings
disabling this option does not prevent anyone from downloading the photos, it makes it just slightly more difficult.
including a watermark with the copyright is always a good idea, since bloggers will often ommit to give you credits or link to your original photo page or website.
it's technically impossible to prevent someone from linking to a photos that is on a public website, and by using deep-links, anyone can cause your photo to appear in their blog or home page. they can also download the image and copy it on their site.
i usually don't care having my photos on blogs (i prefer when people ask first) but i do not permit that they use some of my photos on commercial sites (e.g. porn sites) and use them to bring viewers to sites that do business by selling advertising. in that case, i remind them that what they do is illegal (if they use "all right reserved" or "NC" photos), and threaten legal action.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the "send to a friend" function is new, and isn't currently a choice by the user. So we can't turn it off. And it seems to go against many of the other controls/choices that Flickr has in place for the owner of a photostream to control who can use/copy/display their images.
"The owner of an image can't reserve rights he or she doesn't have"
Very true. Fortunately, we can reserve rights that we DO have, like all of the ones associated with the images that we've created. whew.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the "send to a friend" function is new, and isn't currently a choice by the user. So we can't turn it off.
it should probably not be allowed to send individual photos from owners that "don't allow downloads" in their profile, or it least, in that case, it should only send a link to the photo page, and not include the photo embeded in the HTML (if the photo is embeded in the HTML with an IMG tag it is trivial for the receiver to save the photo!).
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
masai_kenya - if you use the "Send To A Friend" function and the recipient then claims the image as their own under the "it was e-mailed to me" excuse, doesn't it kind of serve you right for having that sort of friend in the first place? And sending them stuff?
Bottom line: people of poor conscience will always screw you over if they get the chance, no matter what you do to try and prevent it. All you can do is try and make it hard enough that they decide it's not worth it, and find someone else's account to plunder...
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
doesn't it kind of serve you right for having that sort of friend in the first place
The issue isn't if you send your own photos to someone who then claims them... the issue is if I send your photos to someone... and you have no control over that at the moment.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, I wasn't making any distinction between the image sent being the sender's or a third party's - same principle applies; don't send stuff to twats. Let their fingers do the walking...
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but you said "it serves you right" ... but if you send my photo to a twat, why does that serve me right if that twat then steals my image? Maybe it serves you right, but you have no stake in it. That's all. :)
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, I wasn't making any distinction between the image sent being the sender's or a third party's - same principle applies
the sender has the right to send his work to anyone he wants.
but this right should not extends to other sending his work, unless he agrees with that. presumably people who "allow anyone to download their photos" agree with that. others may not want flickr to encourage others to download their work.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Seems to be the function that's more in question, rather than the intent of those using it.
Might be nice to see the option to disable "Send to a friend" for those who are worried about its use (such an option might exist, I just can't find it...).
Edit: Actually, Brenda, after reading Masai's post again, I think I may have misinterpreted - I didn't twig that she was talking about someone sending someone else's work to a third party!
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dr. Keats edited this topic 32 months ago.
|
|
|
there is no way to disable it.
this goes against the idea of having an account setting that makes it harder for people to "download your photos".
e.g. when people want to download a photo protected by that (i.e. "save as" does not work), they can send it to themself, then use "save as" from the photo in the HTML mail.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For sure - if you're "All Rights Reserved" and don't allow downloads or blogging, the "Send To A Friend" function certainly flies in the face of it all!
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Google case hinged on the fact that Google was both copying images to their own servers, modifying them to a thumbnail size (which, in itself, was found to be a fair use as it's transformative) and then, crucially, making them available to mobile phone users at this new size, competing with the website owner's own mobile phone distribution of the images.
Like the Blog This button, the Send to Friend function does not create a new copy of an image, it uses inline IMG tags which are legal per Arribasoft.
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The distinction of the technical aspect of where the displayed image is residing, doesn't matter. The image is appearing in a place that the owner may not want it to appear, namely a person's inbox. You want to get really silly, if that inbox is on yahoo mail or Hotmail, then it's appearing on a page surrounded by ads, generating ad revenue for someone, which is also against some folks' license terms not allowing commercial use.
I'll use the same example as in the other post where Wooble tried to argue that a "copy" is what counts:
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.
[also, neither here not there, but the fair use aspect of thumbnails is shaky, the precedent was specifically for a search engine making use of the images for searching. there hasn't been a case testing it for simple transformation yet.]
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
BTW the official thread for discussing the new "Send to a friend" feature is here:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/39383/
Posted 32 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread was closed automatically due of a lack of responses over the last month.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
