|
You searched for all, rights, reserved, blog and this.
Dear Flickr Mgmnt, Blog This is B***S***!!!!
|
Maybe I am opening a can of worms here, but I would just like to say a few things about the "Blog This" feature on flickr.
If others want everyone to blog their photos, that's fine, but why can't I turn this off for my photos?
Has it ever occurred to flickr mgmt that some people might use this feature to put other people's images in a bad light? Or that they might blog images that support a certain political, social or even racist agenda without the photo owner's consent?
In my case, I shoot and post, primarily, nude images. It would be very easy for someone with a religious agenda to use my images in a blog about indecent or immoral images without my consent, and frankly, I don't like the idea of that happening.
If someone wants to blog my photos, that is fine, but they should ask. The way this site is set up, nobody needs permission, they can use photos without consent and without credit (this has happened to me already).
So, dear Flickr, will you please address this concern, and make this feature optional, and give those of us who want to protect our images the options of deciding who can and cannot use them?
Bryon Paul McCartney
Posted at 8:47AM, 17 May 2005 PST
(
permalink
)
|
(1 to 100 of 110 replies in Dear Flickr Mgmnt, Blog This is B***S***!!!!)
|
Very artistic pics btw. I assume you're a professional photographer. I imagine photographers would want as much exposure as possible. It's not as if people have access to the full sized images.
Anyway, I think it's called fair use; people are allowed to critisize your work, no? You're putting your pictures into a PUBLIC photo SHARING site. Do people need to ask to talk about art posted in galleries?
[QUOTE]It would be very easy for someone with a religious agenda to use my images in a blog about indecent or immoral images without my consent, and frankly, I don't like the idea of that happening.[/QUOTE]
Damn free speech eh?
Regardless of whether or not the blog this link is available, if someone wants to they can simply grab your picture. This reminds me exactly of the whole Flash/DHTML 'controversy'.
Craig Perry Nagy
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Can of worms <-- open
EDIT:
Looks like it had alredy been opened.
www.flickr.com/forums/ideas/4650/?search=blog+this
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You can turn off the "blog this" button.
If you make downloads available to only yourself, the "blog this" button disappears for other users, and when they click "different sizes" they get a "you don't have permission to view this page" message.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hmmmm, what does "make downloads available to only yourself" entail? I can't see the different sizes button on Bryon Paul McCartney's photos, but I can see the "Blog This" button.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hi!
So, dear Flickr, will you please address this concern, and make this feature optional, and give those of us who want to protect our images the options of deciding who can and cannot use them?
As mentioned above, you are able to control who may blog about your photos by protecting them with the privacy levels available in Flickr.
If a photo is public, it can be blogged (whether there is a Blog This button or not). So, if you don't want a photo to be blogged, you are able to mark it as something other than public, so only people you know can see the photo.
hmmmm, what does "make downloads available to only yourself" entail?
You are able to set which of your contacts (or any Flickr member) has access to larger versions of your photos.
See this page in Your Account: Allowing Downloads
Pro account holders can make their original files available for download in this manner.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I really don't want to make this whole downloads/blogging/"stealing" discussion any more difficult than it already is, but does that mean that I can only allow people to blog my photos with the "blog this" button if I also allow them to download my full-size images? or have I just misunderstood something?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They are separate things.
- Public photos display the Blog This button.
- You decide who may download your photos here: Allowing Downloads
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"Blog this" has nothing to do with downloading :) All public images can be blogged.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jinx!
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ah, ok. thanks :o)
[edit: both of you!]
it's all getting a bit much for me...
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hmm, interesting discussion. I have two suggestions, either of which might work for most of us...
@George: My remaining concern after your reply is that some will view the "Blog this" function as encouraging viewers to take the photo without the owners permission.
1. Is there any mileage in disabling the "Blog this" function for people other than you unless it is licensed under Creative Commons terms?
2. And/or can the Flickr member get an email when someone uses the function to Blog their photos? That way they can get in touch if it concerns them, and, they would get to see and perhaps enjoy the reuse to which it had been put. (Actually, since I'm not aware of anyone blogging any of my photos, maybe this happens already?)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
<-- /highfives Eric
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I do like the idea of getting a Flickrmail whenever someone blogs a photo. Since Flickr has the URL of every blog, it could place a link to the blog in the notification message. Sounds good to me.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And/or can the Flickr member get an email when someone uses the function to Blog their photos?
I agree that that would be nice - maybe just a little notification under "recent activity", the same as you get when someone faves an image?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
er... quas' ideas is better. maybe I should log off for a while, I'm clearly not quite on the button tonight...
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's the thing: Flickr is about photo sharing, and blogging photos is a major part of that. If you don't want photos blogged, again, make them private.
We would like to enable some sort of reporting so people can find out when others blog their photos, but we do not plan to remove the blog this button.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
take the photo without the owners permission
This appears to be the crux of the issue.
The point that it's really important to understand is this: If you place a photo on an internet site, anyone who can view the photo can take it without your permission. Flickr's privacy level allows to to restrict availability of some photos to people you know. This is good.
Some indication of whether someone has blogged your photo via the Blog This method is in the pipeline. That way you can keep an eye on who is taking your photos without your permission ;)
Of course, anyone who blogged a photo from Flickr without using the Blog This method would need to be tracked down using other means.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jinxy winxy!
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Jinxy winxy!
Now when I was growing up, it was "Jinx! I touched blue first." Is this an age gap or a geography gap?
Phil
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
While it might be said that a copyright holder is typically secured exclusive rights to perform or display the work publicly [wikipedia], you're also agreeing in the Flickr terms of use to allow other Flickr users to view and share your images.
The line a few sentences later, "Ludicorp undertakes to obey all relevant copyright laws, however misguided we may all judge them to be." has always bugged me, though, because it's so ambiguous. I'd love to know that Flickr and Ludicorp will back the copyright of my photos not just because it's the law, but because they believe I have a right to control my own work.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have never been sure why people find that amibiguous. Just ignore the second part, which is just commentary, and believe us when we say "Ludicorp undertakes to obey all relevant copyright laws" :)
Nobody here thinks all copyright laws are misguided, either.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then I might humbly suggest you remove any commentary from the TOS when referring to user's rights, especially if it is giving a false impression, especially if that false impression might be that you don't really believe in the artist's right to copyright.
I don't know about Ludicorp's/Yahoo's lawyers, but I'm pretty sure our company's lawyers would physically come into our office and stand over our shoulder while we removed that line, just to be sure. ;)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Blah. I've ALWAYS enjoyed that sort of funny (and true) commentary in stuffy and formal disclaimers and terms of serviceseses. It is a welcome slice of life and humanity. I'm smart enough to take it with a grain of salt and a smile. And "however misguided we may all judge them to be" those little snippets that remind us there are PEOPLE behind the legal jargon don't take away from the validity of the disclaimers et. al.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's nice. And irrelvant to my point. :)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I wasn't really trying to address your point, but my comment is not exactly irrelevant to it.
My comment implied that I did not get any "false impressions" and I don't read it to say that they don't believe in an artist's right to copyright. Read: ("we MAY all judge" emphasis added)
AND it was my humble POV, hoping that they DON'T remove it (in contrast to your humble suggestion that they do).
EDIT: :-)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
there is no significant difference between this and the downloading issue.
if flickr is willing to cutrail fair use in hindering downloading if the photo owner wishes it, they should be prepared to curtail fair use in terms of linking if the photo owner wishes it.
the only difference that i see here is that "blog this" generates free advertising for flickr, whereas someone using a photo as wallpaper or downloading it to personally view online does not.
removing blog this would not "prevent" blogging, but it would "hinder it"
since hindering something is enough to make it a worthwhile feature {apparently}, and because users are upset about being forced to have it on their photos, this should provide adequate reason to remove "blog this".
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
o_0
Just sayin', anyway. That stuff doesn't make it past our company's lawyers. You might find it funny, and hell, I find it funny. But if some copyright contention does make it to court, and Flickr is cited as a defendant (because sue-happy people do seem to enjoy drawing in everyone involved, from what i've seen), that line is very definitely going to be called into question.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, there are a lot of sue happy people in America. (other places too, I know...but I've noticed in AMerica it is VERY commonplace, almost expected.)
Anyway, back to our regular programming...
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It should be noted that Blog This type functionality is fully allowed with current copyright law.
Linking to an original image using a small thumbnail is not a violation of copyright in any way.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i didn't mean to imply that flickr only had this difference in policy for marketing reasons.
marketing reasons are unlikely what is actually motivating the difference in policy, but it makes for very poor optics.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
for me, the real issue is not one of copyright as much as it is of common courtesy. if I want to use a photo that belongs to someone else, then I ask, I don't just take it without them even knowing. the 'blog this' is just a shortcut for lazy people who don't have any courtesy to ask a simple favor.
here is another thought...
those discourteous people might include bloggers with certain agendas. imagine that a gay man posts a foto of himself and his lover, then along comes someone who hits 'blog this' and posts that foto on their web site about hatred towards gays. hey it's free speech you say? two weeks later you are reading in the newspaper about a gay couple murdered by a guy who visited a hate site and tracked them down through flickr.com. hey, there is some great PR for you guys. maybe I am paranoid, but stranger things have happened in the world.
frankly, I find this whole attitude of 'they can blog without the blog button' to be pathetic. if there is a 'blog this' button attached to my images then there is an implication that I sanction that. All I am asking is that I, as the photo owner, should have the right to decide which images I want that button to appear on. why is that so difficul to provide? or is the staff worried they will lose their free marketing channel?
there are valid statements on both sides of the issue, but the simple fact is that Flickr should err on the side of caution. at the very least, I want notification of anyone using that button to blog my photos, with a link to the blog. yes, of course, I realize that anyone can blog my images without using the button, but my guess is that if that button is there, they are more likely to use it than to not use it, therefore, I want to know.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
at the very least, I want notification of anyone using that button to blog my photos, with a link to the blog. yes, of course, I realize that anyone can blog my images without using the button, but my guess is that if that button is there, they are more likely to use it than to not use it, therefore, I want to know.
Yes. They have already said above that its in "the pipeline"
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
All I am asking is that I, as the photo owner, should have the right to decide which images I want that button to appear on.
This seems like a reasonable request given the "minor hindrance" solution for stopping direct downloading of photos. It's not going to stop anyone who really wants to post your image on their blog, but it does remove the implied sanctioning of it by the user/photographer.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
On the surface it seems similar, yes. But the "minor hindrance" solution was a feature given to users to help stop unethical/illegal downloading (arguments about effectivenes aside). The "Blog this" however is 1) at the core of how Flickr got big (with all these links back) and 2) more importantly, completely inline with all ethical and legal codes - it provides a link back to Flickr, credits the author of the photo - It's fair use with the click of a button.
It can be said to be a Flickr feature more than a user feature.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i was referring more to the idea that people are complaining about it, and it would be easy to provide a solution for these people that, while not being effective in stopping the actual problem, would solve it in a way that would make the people happy.
saying "that's how flickr wants it" is an ineffectual argument... flickr has been growing and changing with its user's requests since the beginning. providing opt-in options to make people happy is definitely a positive step for any community oriented web application.
personally, i don't have any problem with my photos being "blog this"'d, but i can see Bryon's point that he'd prefer people asked first, out of (un)common courtesy.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
imsireal
give those of us who want to protect our images the options of deciding who can and cannot use them
&
All I am asking is that I, as the photo owner, should have the right to decide which images I want that button to appear on.
You do have this right. You can prevent people from sharing your photos by marking them private.
Please don't misunderstand me - we know what you are asking for - but if you look at it from an overall system point of view for a moment, adding preferences like this all over the place would lead us away from the principle of simplicitly we work to now, and eventually make Flickr a yukky, unusable mess.
We think it's confusing enough already ;)
Most people are courteous too... or at least deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm not quite sure I buy the simplicity/usability argument. That's not to say I'd necessarily like the option to disable blogging.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
saying "that's how flickr wants it" is an ineffectual argument.
Well, my argument was more subtle than that. I was trying to point out its a core part of Flickr in a way that many other features are not. Flickr is not just catering to the people who post photos, it also needs to cater to the people who browse, look at and link to photos. This would harm that part of their userbase in making the site less usable.
Also, we think we have a range of options but despite repeated requests, all of our photo pages are laid out in exactly the same way, for example. :) What they (the Flickr team) are good at is appearing to give us what we want while holding on to what they need. I am arguing that this feature starts crossing that boundary.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sure, I can make all my photos private, but then, that would also defeat the purpose of putting them in a public forum.
what exactly is 'confusing' about giving photo owners the possibility to disable the 'blog this' button? if anything it would help notify potential bloggers, by saying 'hey, I don't want you to use this photo' if the button is not there. for that matter, since you give people the option of putting a creative commons icon on their pages, why can't you include a 'please don't blog' or 'please ask if you want to blog' icon?
we can play seesaw and you can continue to stand by your policies, but the fact is that you have made changes for other issues, so it seems suspect as to why you are clinging to your stance in regard to the blog this button.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
'Most people are courteous too... or at least deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
Maybe they are, but in every instance someone has blogged my photos, they never asked me and they didn't give me credit or link to my page.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then they didn't use the "blog this" button, which automatically gives both credit and a link.
And did you see this?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Your point that giving people the option to opt out of "blog this" would hurt flickr is arguable. If I felt strongly enough about the issue, I would simply not use flickr. (As I said earlier, I don't feel this way, but for the sake of discussion...) ... in such a case, who gets hurt here?
Not someone like Bryon, who is likely to get good exposure and recognition wherever he posts his photos.
I would be willing to bet that the number of people who choose to opt out of the "blog this" feature would be quite low, and have little impact on flickr as a whole.
(I'm not trying to be obstinate here ... in a way, this relates to work that I do too, and I find it's always an interesting discussion when the wants of the user are compared to the wants of the community, and the wants/needs of the company/service.)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
to sbpoet
I did see it, evidently you did not see my response, I tested it and that does not hide the blog this button as Eric also explained: all public photos can be blogged.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Did this used to work -- maybe I tried it on a buggy day. I did try it, and that's exactly what happened; but you are right, it doesn't work today.
Gotta go undo it now.
Sorry.
But still -- the "blog this" button does give attribution.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This would harm that part of their userbase in making the site less usable
they have implemented other features that make the site less usable to people.
i've a feeling that the days of the universal application of "Blog This" are numbered.
there just aren't that many active bloggers here.. among those that blog other people's photos, how many of these bloggers are paid account holders?
that, and there are too many people who will keep complaining about "Blog This" as time goes on. people who are willing to take their money elsewhere over such a feature.
flickr has always been about keeping as many people happy as possible. before, it was about keeping bloggers happy, since there were more of them here.
now, it is about keeping both non-bloggers and bloggers happy.. so they are trying to score points with both over different features, even if this makes their rationales for different things highly contradictory.
that's a natural outcome of a "point scoring" strategy. another outcome is that it keeps the most possible people happy.
eventually the demographic swing will make bloggers far less important on flickr, at which point i can definitely see them kicking out the bottom rung ~ not because they hate bloggers or are mindless profit seekers, but simply because they will want to keep the maximum number of users happy.
and getting rid of the universal application of "Blog This" will be the best way to achieve this.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, thats your opinion.
:)
(foresees the *addition* of something like 'share at yahoo360')
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
strong comeback.
;)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
still -- the "blog this" button does give attribution
That's the important point here. The "blog this" button provides a blog post with attribution to the photographer, and link back to the photo page.
Maybe they are, but in every instance someone has blogged my photos, they never asked me and they didn't give me credit or link to my page.
These people did not use the Blog This button. Therefore removal of it will not solve your problem.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That was shorthand for saying: There's not enough data to support things either way. And I'm seeing all of one person in this thread take a strong stand aganst it. Hardly a trend (with due apologies to imsreal)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wait a minute, I'm confused (obviously not unusual.)
You've had your photos blogged several times, and ". . . in every instance someone has blogged my photos, they never asked me and they didn't give me credit or link to my page."
So they never used the "Blog This" button.
But you think that removing the button will help?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, thats your opinion.
yeah, well .. care to wager on it?
And I'm seeing all of one person in this thread take a strong stand aganst it.
there have been other threads in other groups.
the current lot may be content with it, but i still think that the ongoing demographic shift away from bloggers will ultimately will change this.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sure. Name your terms.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sure. Name your terms.
alright.
within the next two years flickr will change the option for blog this so that it only appears optionally on photos where the photo owner permits it.
20 USD
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suggest a race around the world.
(sorry)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
another thing that flickr can do is generate independent thumbnails {up to a certain limit} each time that "Blog This" is used, and link this to the trackback system they are proposing.
then, if the photo owner sees a use they don't like, they could delete the thumbnail and ban that user from using "blog this" on their photos again.
flickr could also allow users to switch the 'base' url for thumbnails to trip up bloggers as well.
there are many tools that flickr could use to help photo owners trip up bloggers .. even bloggers who don't use 'blog this'
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic, would you stop dishing out these obfuscation techniques, you're going to raise interest in them...
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
within the next two years flickr will change the option for blog this so that it only appears optionally on photos where the photo owner permits it.
20 USD
Deal. I'll even throw in a round of drinks for you and a party of people (not to exceed 4 total; bar and drink choice at my discretion; void where prohibited) with no reciprocation required on your part.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Deal. I'll even throw in a round of drinks for you and a party of people (not to exceed 4 total) with no reciprocation required on your part.
damn, now i am going to have to lobby even harder for the change!
striatic, would you stop dishing out these obfuscation techniques, you're going to raise interest in them...
i know of a few more that wouldn't affect the API, wouldn't affect group pools and wouldn't affect much else, but would let photo owners pull the rug out from under people who hotlink.
even if i don't bring up these ideas, a competing site will and flickr will have to choose between implementation or making a lot of people unhappy.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
quas:
I'm not quite sure I buy the simplicity/usability argument
That's fair... it was just my knee-jerk reaction to somebody asking for yet another preference - I didn't mean to detract from the issue too much.
Imsireal:
in every instance someone has blogged my photos, they never asked me and they didn't give me credit or link to my page
Well, they should have linked back to the photo page on Flickr or they aren't playing by the rules. I'm curious - How did you find out?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Dear Flickr,
Could you please implement a feature that ensures all people that try to use my photos in a bad way are zapped with electricity each time they even think of doing so? This is the best way I can think of protecting my photos, so that only people that think they are good talk about them. :)
Seriously folks, protect your photos by either not posting them, or add a watermark so people always know where they came from and it limits their use. Those are your options on the internet.
That'd be a neat feature, autowatermarking when someone clicks "Blog This" (since the link attribution is easily removed in blogger for example). Bah, I don't care; I'm not trying to make my livelihood from photography which evidently many people on flickr are.
P.S. I think someone blogging your photo is a favour for YOU not them.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic: you're right, of course. I just wanted to keep my head in the sand a little longer. Oh well...
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
From the flickr home page...
The best way to store, search and share your photos.
Quotes:
"Flickr makes [photo sharing] far easier..."
- Guardian Unlimited
"...cutting edge realtime photo sharing."
- PC World
Word of the day: share
Not: sell, buy, advertise, publisize, control, restrict, hide, hoard,...
This has been mentioned before, but maybe Flickr could fork and have a photo commerce site...although, I know this would get less traffic than a sharing site simply because most people aren't interested in buying others photos on Flickr.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Frayed - You took several words right out of my mouth ;)
And back to that preference-adding usability point! What I should have said is that I don't think it's good practice to add preferences that hinder other people's ability to interact with & share your public photos. That's all :)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the other issue is that once people figure out that flickr is a much better venue for photo searching than google images, the level of hotlinking will increase considerably.
a trackback feature like the one proposed will also make people more aware of being blogged without permission, and once they realise that they can't do anything about it, more likely go to the forums and complain.
this, coupled by an increase in members with no particular interest in fair use will cause flickr to do very different things to keep as many people happy as possible.
and since this really is a minor change {one extra setting}, and since the reasoning behind it is the same as the reasoning behind the spaceball setting .. flickr would have to be silly not to make the change.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I would like to support an option to to disable the "blog this" feature. But in the meantime, why is the attribution I usually see on a blog say "Originally uploaded by". That's not giving the actual photographer legitimate credit for being the photographer of the photo.
Also, some of the thumbnails I've seen of my images on blogs seem larger than I would have expected.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Also, some of the thumbnails I've seen of my images on blogs seem larger than I would have expected.
flickr allows people to blog up to the medium size that you see on your main photo page, and with a one letter change to the img src url, it will allow bloggers to display the original sized photo.
I would like to support an option to to disable the "blog this" feature. But in the meantime, why is the attribution I usually see on a blog say "Originally uploaded by"
the current flickr set-up will let the person doing the blogging omit your name entirely if they like, right in the flickr template.
it will even let people remove any attribution entirely from the photo, when it would be very easy for flickr to only make this possible AFTER the post is on the blog. this would hinder abuse.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Blogging is almost always fair use.
The "Blog This" button automatically gives attribution by specifying the photographer by their Flickr name, which is, after all, the name the service knows.
Remove the "Blog This" button, and bloggers can, and if they want to, will, copy and use the photo by other means that do not automatically provide attribution. A responsible blogger still will, of course, add attribution.
[striatic slipped]
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Blogging is almost always fair use.
so is using save as, but there is the option to disable that.
you must admit that there is a potential for abuse, and therefore flickr should provide tools that might hinder this abuse at the request of the photo owner.
The "Blog This" button automatically gives attribution by specifying the photographer by their Flickr name, which is, after all, the name the service knows.
this can be edited after the fact in the blog post, or even right in the flickr template.
also, the flickr TOS does not specify that the person's name be included beside the photo, only that the photo link back to its photo page.
by altering the link border colour to match the blog's background colour, the fact that the photo is a link can be made almost entirely invisible. flickr should also mandate a certain border thickness and colour in its TOS in order to prevent this.
Remove the "Blog This" button, and bloggers can, and if they want to, will, copy and use the photo by other means that do not automatically provide attribution.
this is more time consuming. making the blog this feature optional would hinder all and deter at least a few blogging photo thieves.
plus, it will make the photo owner happy that the thief was at least mildly annoyed by having to do this.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
To George,
"Flickr's privacy level allows to to restrict availability of some photos to people you know. This is good."
"You do have this right. You can prevent people from sharing your photos by marking them private."
Hi George, I've always wanted to ask Flickr staff about the "PRIVATE" setting. I hope I can use this place and opportunity to do so, since you have commented as above.
Many people have advised me to do this if I do not want anybody to steal my images without my consent (please refer to the thread www.flickr.com/forums/help/6851/). That is exactly what I have being doing to protect some of my photos - setting them "PRIVATE" for my family and friends' eyes only.
However, how really private and secure is this "PRIVATE" setting, I wonder. Obviously, there are so many tech-savvy people out there who can simply go around the system, and as many people eloquently put for so many times, "if you uploaded images on the net, somehow someone can steal it". But even these tech-savvy people have advised me to "set your photos "PRIVATE" if you don't want them to be viewed or stolen".
so, I would like to know exactly how private the "PRIVATE" setting actually is? Your feedback will be grately appreciated! :-)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"if you uploaded images on the net, somehow someone can steal it"
they meant "upload public photos".
private photos really are very safe.
if the thief can see it, the thief can steal it extremely easily, but if the thief can't see it then it becomes much more difficult.
unless someone has an "accomplice" who has access to your photos, it is extremely difficult for them to find your private photos.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
hi sleepydays,
does your question inculde wether or not a private image appears on google's image search?
i can't answer that question, but i'm thinking it might be soemthing you also have concerns about?
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
does your question inculde wether or not a private image appears on google's image search?
it doesn't show up.
really, there are only two ways that i can think of that would let someone get a private photo without an accomplice with access to it. both are pretty lousy and impractical and honestly not worth bothering about.
one is to try every single possible url combination to get to the image file. this would need to be automated and would fail most of the time.
flickr would notice this and be able to cut off the script attempting this from accessing flickr, at least until it got a new IP and started trying again.
this would also damage flickr's bandwidth capacity severely and is almost certainly illegal. flickr would have full legal recourse against something like that.
the other way to do this is for someone to sniff your flickr password.
since your password is sent to flickr completely unencrypted, if someone really wanted to go to the effort to do this and had enough knowledge about where and when you log into flickr, they might be able to figure it out.
of course, if this happened, you would have much bigger problems than people seeing your private photos.
this is also EXTREMELY unlikely to ever happen to you. it would be a difficult thing to pull off and illegal with very little upside. there's a much greater chance of someone stealing your debit card and pin number on the street than this happening, i'd wager.
suffice to say that while not a safety deposit box, private photos are really very, very safe.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sleepydays:
I would like to know exactly how private the "PRIVATE" setting actually is?
It's really, really, really private. No-one can see a photo that you've marked as private except you.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No-one can see a photo that you've marked as private except you.
...unless you add it to a group, of course. :)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You mean as in 'place your photo in a public space'? Yes.
And, yes, I know that some groups can be private ;)
Now - I have to get some work done!!!!!!
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
a few words from me: the reporting feature sounds good
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
(And no - private images will not show up in Google or Yahoo or anyone else's image search :)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic, ellipse, George, and Stewart,
Thank you very much for your insight and information. They are very much appreciated!
Now at least I feel better about the photos in "PRIVATE" setting. Glad that I do not need to relocate all of my private photos back to my hard disk drive!! ;-) Yahoo!
And, to quas, thanks for pointing that out, and I have covered that part already! ;-) They do not belong to any public groups.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Some threads just beg to end with the phrase "...whether you like it or not." ;-)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now at least I feel better about the photos in "PRIVATE" setting. Glad that I do not need to relocate all of my private photos back to my hard disk drive!! ;-) Yahoo!
you might also want to consider only uploading your public photos at only 500x500 pixels, then upload the same photo at maximum resolution but as a private photo.
right now, using a hack, i can download your original sized photos with one click on your photo page.
by resizing before upload and then linking to the private photopage for the larger versions in the public photo's description you would:
make it impossible for me {or anyone} to download your original photo
while:
still giving your friends and family on flickr access to the high resolution shots.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you for your information and advice, striatic!
"right now, using a hack, i can download your original sized photos with one click on your photo page."
You mean my photos set as "PUBLIC", right? Yes, that may be a nifty idea. I will look into that. :-)
But as far as "PUBLIC" photos are concerned, I've marked only those which I more or less do not mind people viewing, downloading, and using for fair use as "PUBLIC". So, I am not so concerned about them too much (though I am still screening all of my photos in the photostream, checking if I have missed and left any private photos in the "PUBLIC" setting). ;-)
Maybe I can put CC to some of these photos which I can entrust in the hands of viewers for their fair use.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You mean my photos set as "PUBLIC", right?
yes .. the solution is based on the fact that private photos are pretty much untouchable.
i suggested this because currently your public photos have downloading disabled, so i assumed that you were trying to protect the higher resolution versions of your public photos.
Maybe I can put CC to some of these photos which I can entrust in the hands of viewers for their fair use.
maybe : ) CC enables much more than fair use though, you will want to be careful with the license you select.
under normal copyright people can download photos and use them personally and even blog them without needing to ask your permission.
CC enables people to do much more impactful things, so if you're only interested in letting people copy the photo to their computer or post it to their blog to comment on it then CC isn't necessary. serious overkill.
if you are interested in letting people do things like .. say .. add your photos into a photo collage they are making, without having to ask your permission first .. or create a little non-profit magazine around your photos {with little or no commentary, just showing off a whole bunch of your stuff} then a CC license like this one might be the thing for you.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To striatic,
Yes, I have not enabled downloading of original images for higher resolution originals yet, because I am still contemplating which photos I should license with CC. So, for the time being, I wanted to maintain my "All Right Reserved" mark turned on officially. ;-)
Thanks! ;-D
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, I have not enabled downloading of original images for higher resolution originals yet, because I am still contemplating which photos I should license with CC.
one thing you might want to consider is only adding CC to any photos that you add to groups.
this:
flickr.com/groups/topic/25820/
and this:
www.flickr.com/photos/krazydad/4142921/
are two group based projects that wouldn't have been possible without CC. people like to use the API to automatically generate collaborative art out of the contents of group pools. using a CC license lets you contribute your photos to these kinds of projects without the artist asking you first .. something that is very difficult to do when they are working with 1000s of people and photos.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
From George:
'Well, they should have linked back to the photo page on Flickr or they aren't playing by the rules. I'm curious - How did you find out?'
I did a web search on my name and found a link I did not recognize, when I went to the page (on Blogger) there was one of my images without any attribution or credit. I can send a screen grab, I still have it somewhere.
As far as the 'Blog This' button, it seems clear that Flickr allows bloggers to edit out the attributions, so what's up with that staff? You sit here and defend this button on the basis that it provides attributions and credit, when in fact the Blogger can just delete all that? Your words ring hollow. I smell a rotten fish.
What gets me is everyone's avoidance of the example I raised. Just what would happen to Flickr if a blogger used someone's image to incite a hate crime and someone was, god forbid, hurt or killed as a result? I know it sounds or seems extreme, but it could happen. I can read the headline in Wired now, 'Flickr Fuels the Flames of Hated'. Catchy.
By the way, how do I contact Yahoo Legal Affairs and Corporate Communications? I am sure they would love to hear about this type of scenario.
here is the best quote out of the whole thread:
from sbpoet:
'Blogging is almost always fair use.'
Really? And just how would you know that? Do you read all the blogs on the net and verify that blogged images are used fairly? Give me a break. Maybe I am cynical, but I am sure that for every three bloggers that use images fairly, there is bound to be one whose intentions are less than noble. Blame it on society, human nature or just plain ignorance.
Blogging is also now beginning to be a commercial channel for companies and entrepreneurs, so does 'fair use' include using my photos on a commercial blog? I think not. As far as i know, blogging images without consent is only allowed (from a legal perspective) when the image is commented on. As in reviewed, critiqued, analyzed.
In the one case that I referred to above, the blogger in question was using my image (and continues to use many others) to illustrate a poem he had written. However noble his intentions may have been, that is not fair use. He blatantly mis-used my image to make his own work look better. Flattered though I may be, in the real world, people pay for that usage.
Whether or not 'blog this' is removed, there needs to be some accountability, and soon. The flickr staff can keep defending their position all they want, but the fact remains that dissent will only continue to grow, especially as more abuses occur. At the very least, the reporting function needs to be implemented and as was suggested on another thread, there should be more 'educational' information that defines proper fair use. Also, if it is true that attributes and credits can be removed in the 'blog this' template, then that should be taken care of, tout suite.
regards,
bpm
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I did a web search on my name and found a link I did not recognize, when I went to the page (on Blogger) there was one of my images without any attribution or credit. I can send a screen grab, I still have it somewhere.
how did the serch find your name if they weren't providing credit?
i mean, unless your name was on that page somewhwere, your search shouldn't have turned it up, right?
i'm not saying yoru story isn't true .. that just seems very odd.
Also, if it is true that attributes and credits can be removed in the 'blog this' template, then that should be taken care of, tout suite.
to be fair, removing these things violates the flickr TOS.
that said, they are easily removable and flickr could pretty easily make them much more difficult to remove.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
'how did the serch find your name if they weren't providing credit?'
I don't know? Like I said, I have a screen grab that shows my image without any credit or atribution. I don't know if it was taken from flickr or elsewhere and I don't know why it turned up in a search, perhaps my name was in the meta data, but that is not a credit.
This blog is full of images from other photographers (some well known) that are uncredited and without link backs.
I understand that removing the attributes is against the TOS, but if there is no reporting, how would you know if your image was used, and how would you be able to verify if it was credited or not?
And again, I realize that changing these things will not prevent people from blogging photos.
Like I have said before, there are valid arguments on both sides, but it seems to me that flickr should err on the side of caution.
I also want to say, that I do appreciate the site, and I think it is a great platform for discussing and viewing great photography. I am constantly inspired by images I see here. So thanks to Flickr for that.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just what would happen to Flickr if a blogger used someone's image to incite a hate crime and someone was, god forbid, hurt or killed as a result?
This is not a Flickr-specific problem. Flickr is just one of many ways to publish your images online. Any of these ways can lead to your scenario.
It's up to Flickr staff to evaluate the risk of such a scenario vs the cost of implementing features that would diminish its probability.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am not saying the problem is Flickr specific, I am saying the risk is great that if this were to happen, Flickr would be hurt pretty bad by some very ugly PR, despite the fact that there are any number of ways to blog a photo. Further, some of the language that is used by Flickr, in regards to blogging photos, certainly shows that Flickr supports the practice and even encourages it. I am not a lawyer, but it seems like a ripe territory for an ambulance chaser.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
imsireal, your point is clear and valid. I just think that meetings with lawyers didn't make Flickr into the great service that it is today, but that's not for me to decide. :-)
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
imsireal, you are correct, I undoubtedly overstated with "most blogging is fair use." An overreaction to other discussions that have nothing to do with you; my apologies.
Your example is a very painful one (especially to someone like me, who has lost a brother and best friends to AIDS) -- but I still must acknowledge that if such a loathsome person took a photo from my photostream to demonstrate that "gay people are showing themselves off" or whatever, that loathsome person would be protected by our Constitution.
This is one of several reasons you find few photos of people in my photostream.
------------- switch of direction
I think I may have realized (I know, obvious to everyone else) why I got confused about the "blog this" button -- that button is only available to logged-in Flickr members, isn't it? Must be, since you have to set up your blogs in the service. So, if you have a problem with the use a Flickr member has made of your photo, you have the Flickr help system to hand. Staff may, or may not, be able to or choose to help you.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
perhaps my name was in the meta data, but that is not a credit.
yeah but, to the best of my knowledge none of the major search engines really looks at meta-data these days.
it's really odd.
i ran a google search on your screen name here and only found one photo of yours on blogger, and there was no poem associated with it.
so you got the person to take the photo down? but then your name would still be in the meta-data for the page, right?
like i said, this just seems extremely odd.
maybe if you post the screenshot i can try to find the correct page and discover where the search engine was getting your name from. even though i didn't think that search engines were looking at meta-data anymore, it probably was in the meta-data and i'm very curious to see how search engines function.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It could have been in invisible DIV or something, though I have no idea why anyone would do that.
As far as the 'Blog This' button, it seems clear that Flickr allows bloggers to edit out the attributions, so what's up with that staff?
I can't think of any way to force bloggers to leave the attribution part in. Like the photo downloading issue, you can make it slightly harder for the blogger to remove attribution, but you can't prevent it. The easiest way to do this would be by forcing the photographer's ID to appear somewhere in the template, but it would be easy to comment that part out or even put that part in an invisible DIV. I think that doing something like that would be similar to the anti-downloading GIF – it might make photographers happy, but it wouldn't really add much security.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I did a Technorati search and I found these Blogs.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this was the page in question, the owner removed the image on my request:
eroticidades.blogspot.com/2005/02/eu-versus-poesia.html
Again, I don't have a problem with people blogging my photos, but my minimum preference would be to know who is doing it, if possible.
Turning off the 'blog this' might also encourage people to ask first, maybe not?
bpm
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm quite happy there are plans for a notification of 'Blog This' activity. Taking the issue into my own hands is my preferred method of dealing with things.
I agree that the Blog This button does more than "allow" blogging (and yes, we've had it beat into us the last week that you can't prevent people from doing anything they please with images on the net), it implies permission, even that I encourage it. And I do :) but I also prefer to know when it occurs.
So thanks.
Posted 56 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Not sure if an old thread can be bumped by a recent post, but I have a question concerning imsireal's worry about image use by others in an inappropriate context. Back when Corbis made most of its historic photos available for personal, noncommercial Web use at $3/image, I bought a photo and used it with attribution. Corbis had no say regarding the context in which I used the photo.
This is how I interpret usage guidelines for images on flickr with Creative Commons licenses (the difference being that one doesn't have to pay for these images).
In short, I would like to find CC-licensed images appropriate for whatever content I'm producing, download the 500px versions, upload them to my server's images folder, and use them on my pages with a caption that links back to that photo's main page. (I have no intention of using the Blog This button, preferring to do my own posting/formatting.)
Now, it's possible that the photographer and I may differ in our political opinions, and that the photographer may not be aware of such usage, but I think both of these are inherent in the CC license. Similarly, a photographer who parks photos at a commercial agency does not usually get to dictate the political stripe of a magazine that may buy and use the photos.
Obviously I would not consider using images marked "All rights reserved" in this way, but when I see a CC image I consider it "fair game" within the constraints summarized above. Is there something not kosher about this that I fail to see?
Should common courtesy and/or flickr culture (with which I am not all that familiar, being a newbie) dictate in such cases that I at least notify the photographer? I would think that people set image rights to CC so that they wouldn't be bothered by individual noncommercial use requests...
Posted 55 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, there is no need to notify the photographer. As you said, the whole point of using a CC license is to allow people to use your photos without having to get permission from you first. (Of course, you could even use "all rights reserved" photos with permission from the photographer.)
Posted 55 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
imsireal - having just read your strongly worded profile, I'm surprised that anyone has the temerity to even view your photos, never mind dare to blog them...
OK apologies for the biting sarcasm, but really this seems to me heavy handed at best...
"ATTENTION: My images are provided here for reference and commentary only. I reserve all rights to my images and I am the sole copyright holder. ANY USE of my images without express written permission from me will be prosecuted according to international and local laws. Ignorance is no excuse, if you are caught using my images illegally, I will pursue all necessary avenues to protect my work. Consider this fair warning."
As you're a pro photographer, presumably you put your (very excellent) photos here as an added (and very cheap) way of promoting your work and for the edification of others.
Doesn't our free will give us choices:
a) put work on the internet and know it will possibly be put to uses we are uncomfortable with or downright loathe
OR
b) we weigh up the risks involved and decide it's not worth those risks and don't upload anything to the internet.
Flickr has, it seems to me, put in place a good many safeguards for those who wish to protect their work: far more than many other photo sites.
I for one don't believe that litigation and over-zealous guarding of one's 'rights' is the answer to The Meaning Of Life.....
Posted 55 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that search engines could not display full-sized images without linking back to the Web site upon which they were posted.
But they could display smaller versions of the images, called thumbnails, without infringing copyrights.
Posted 55 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread was closed automatically due of a lack of responses over the last month.
(1 to 100 of 110 replies in Dear Flickr Mgmnt, Blog This is B***S***!!!!)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
