|
They are displaying thumbnails of Flickr images, including ARR images. A mouseover produces a small size of the image. A click-through displays medium images, with the html to display the medium image anywhere you want. None of this links back to the Flickr photo page -- although they do attribute the photos.
Also, this is a commercial website (ad driven).
They seem to be pulling tag searches.
Domain Name: mavenarts.com
Registrar: THE NAME IT CORPORATION DBA NAMESERVICES.NET
Registrant Contact
Name: Bobby J Bailey
Address: 3900 Shelbyville Road
12
Louisville, KY 40207
US
Email Address: bobby@lougeek.com
Phone Number: (502)897-7577
Administrative Contact
Name: Bobby J Bailey
Address: 3900 Shelbyville Road
12
Louisville, KY 40207
US
Email Address: bobby@lougeek.com
Phone Number: (502)897-7577
Technical Contact
Name: Bobby J Bailey
Address: 3900 Shelbyville Road
12
Louisville, KY 40207
US
Email Address: bobby@lougeek.com
Phone Number: (502)897-7577
Record Created on........ 2003-04-07 13:25:48.000
Record last updated on... 2007-04-07 18:01:09.826
Expire on................ 2008-04-07 18:01:08.804
Domain servers in listed order:
ns3.secureserver.net
ns4.secureserver.net
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, on the click-through page, they do offer a very small link back to the photo page at the very very bottom of the page.
All the same, this site seems very uncool to me, and I'm sending them a cease and desist letter right now.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Further, this image gallery was designed by the person running this website:
www.lumis.com/
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And images are also incorrectly displayed at framesblog.mavenarts.com/
The blog's photos link back to mavenarts, but are hosted at Flickr.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
NOI sent
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They seem to be hosted by secureserver.net, which is part of the WWDomains group. Their copyright NOI can be found here:
www.wildwestdomains.com/gdshop/legal_agreements/show_doc....
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
hi people. Having never written to anyone re using my photos to say Oi! Bugger off!
What and to whom do i write re the link in the OP?
Thanks in advance
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Ironically, on his own web site he has the following note: "This is not a stock photography site! If I find my photos being used without my permission I will have a lawyer contact your clients."
Hmmmm....
He's not linking back to the Flickr pages properly. When you click on your picture, it takes you to a mavenart.com URL. Will Flickr staff get in touch with this guy right away?
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Austen, send an email to Name: Bobby J Bailey at bobby@lougeek.com asking him to remove your work from his site. Include the link to your work on his site and to your work on Flickr. Add info about why you believe the work to be a copyright infringement.
Then, go to WWDomains link in the post above yours, scroll down to the copyright section and follow the instructions there.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Cheers Zyrcster, will go and do it now.
I still might include the words, 'bugger off'.
:-)
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Looks like it's pulled now.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That was fast, did you guys do that, Kevin? If so - thanks!
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cool, thanks Kevin, or whoever.
Think iwill still send my rude letter, it will make me feel better at least.
:-)
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ha! This from GoDaddy (WWDomains):
Thank you for contacting Go Daddy. We have suspended the site in question pending a resolution. Please allow up to 30 minutes for these changes to take effect.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I didn't do anything, I was poking around however.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The site is down. Whew!
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Kevin
take the credit anyhow. So o often you guys (staff) get flack for doing or not doing something wheher or not you actually did or didnt do it.
So take this one and feel pleased with yourself.
:-)
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, you might want to poke around their blog, considering that none of the images on that blog link back to Flickr, but are hosted at Flickr.
I don't have any images there, so I can't take any action. ;-)
[edit] link to the blog is posted in one of earlier comments.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
thanks everyone
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's the response of David Rencher, the developer of the software:
#1 That site is not there.
#2 my Gallery software is use on other sites but the operator of that
site chooses which pictures to add to it
#3 all the other sites that use my Gallery software were NOT built or
configured by me
#4 My Gallery software uses the Flickr API which explicitly allows use
of there API by 3rd party developers. i bet you just clicked I agree
when registering on Flickr Without reading the Terms of Service
#5 If you don't want your images used by the Flickr API it is your
responsibility to disable this you can do this here
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/optout/?from=privacy and select
"Hide your photos from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API"
#6 Next time try to understand whats really happening before you send
out lame threats to software developers, thats like you trying to
threaten a lawsuit against Adobe for showing your picture in Photoshop
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What a jerk.
Did you show him the API ToS?
www.flickr.com/services/api/tos/
Especially the part about complying with the image owner's license or copyright???
[edit]
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
zyrcster edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Actually, David requires that each site uses their own API key:
www.lumis.com/eeflickr/
Which means that Flickr ought to revoke mavenart's key, because the site is only in suspension while mavenarts and I sort out our problem withe their use of my images.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Interesting thread that David links back to on his site:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/13063/
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yea, I just finished reading it.
I also looked up the sites that I could find that are using his software, and in every case it's someone's personal site and they are using their personal images to populate the site. No ability to search for and display anyone else's photos.
So, the software can have some legit uses -- but in the case of Mavenarts, that usage was a clear violation of copyrights and licenses by that site. And they had to get their own API key, and the Flickr API ToS spells out that you have to respect people's copyrights!
But David's #5 in your post above is still disappointing, because it doesn't seem that he gets that his software can be used to violate the ToS.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
zyrcster
yeah i can be a jerk when i get every person who finds his/her photos on google sending me e-mails like this... sometimes i wish i would of never of put a link back to my site at the bottom of the templates.
research this a bit before bahsing a software developer for something someone else does wrong with the software...
Also zyrcster on #5 that is the way there API works so that would apply to every piece of API code out there. What if i was a Printer manufacturer and someone used one of my printers to print a illegal document or counterfeit money.. is the person who made the printer responsible?
Well i would have you ALL go read this thread
www.flickr.com/help/forum/13063/
and keep in mind Stuart is/was one of the top dogs at Flickr and there are several other Senior Staff Members on there as well
also keep in mind whomever uses the Scripts/software i wrote have to use there own API key and have to enter in what user name they wish to pull data from. So what it displays is based on how they set it up.. i did not write the software to pull anyones specific photos. thats up for the Websites owner to decide if they put in there username or someone else in the config files.
so since they use there own API key it is up to them to make sure they follow the Flickr TOS for there account.
Also i have stopped developing that software about a year ago. not that that matters,
it was released under GPL license meaning anyone could modify it however they wish. such is the nature of open source.
ohh and just for giggles do a search in google images for your flickr username and them threaten to sue them
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
lumis edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
@dotlyc
all the pictures on www.lumis.com are my photos taken with my camera and i still have all the RAW files.
ohh
and to add to that i understand having my pictures used without my permission i have seen them on TV and on RealEstate sites. and in Sales brochures all without my permission. but the worst one i found was on a lawyers website.
that is why i put that note at the bottom of my site
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
lumis edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
ohh and just for giggles do a search in google images for your flickr username and them threaten to sue them
Just for the record, what Google does and what the site being complained about in the top post here does are two entirely things. Legally speaking, of course.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There does seem to be a conflict between what  lumis is telling us and what the TOS for the Flickr API say:
Flickr APIs Terms of Use
Thank you for using the Flickr application programming interfaces (the "Flickr APIs"). By using the Flickr APIs, you agree to the terms below.
1. Licensed Uses and Restrictions.
a. You shall:
ii. Comply with any requirements or restrictions imposed on usage of the photos by their respective owners. Remember, Flickr doesn't own the images - Flickr users do.
Although the Flickr APIs can be used to provide you with access to Flickr user photos, neither Flickr's provision of the Flickr APIs to you nor your use of the Flickr APIs override the photo owners' requirements and restrictions, which may include "all rights reserved" notices (attached to each photo by default when uploaded to Flickr), Creative Commons licenses or other terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between you and the owners.
In ALL cases, you are solely responsible for making use of Flickr photos in compliance with the photo owners' requirements or restrictions."
As for Google, their use of the thumbnails was established as a result of a court case, and was based on the fact that they were a search engine for the whole web. Google also lost part of their suit:
The appeals court opinion said, "There is no dispute that Google substantially assists Web sites to distribute their infringing copies to a worldwide market and assists a worldwide audience of users to access infringing material." The appeals court instructed the district judge to evaluate whether Google knew that unauthorized copies of Perfect 10's photos were being made available and failed to take steps to prevent it.
So it's not really clear that lumis's defense of "Google does it" would actually stand up in court.
But, here on Flickr, the question remains: Is selling software that does not allow for individual copyright owners to control the use of their images a violation of the API TOS?
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
@ColleenM
no there is no difference at all.
every user who uses the API has to agree to the TOS if they agree to it and dont follow it then it is on them not me
i received an email today asking ME to cease and desist from displaying someones photos.. i would assume they are paulhitz photos that were in question.
the problem is that someone who downloaded my software decided to use THERE API key to display someone else's photos. my software did not make that decision. it clearly says on my download page that it is intended to display your photos that you own. but the software has no way of knowing who they really are so it relys on them to enter in who they are
it is not my site displaying anyone else's photos. I display the photos on my site that are my photos. i share my software because hopefully someone may find it helpful to display there photos.
the software is just a tool like a hammer is a tool. IF i choose to take that hammer and smash a car window and steel a car then well is it the hammers fault? the hammer did not agree to the TOS but the person who uses it does.
try this
webdev.yuan.cc/lfvr/
type in your username
flickrseek.com/?t=uids&searchText=59231897@N00
www.pviewr.713flash.com/index_home.html?pviewr=user^ColleenM^none^4^7^0x49525F
flexplore.raum-fuer-notizen.de/flexplore/index/nsid/59231...
www.fototickr.com/?userID=59231897@N00
www.endorphinum.de/flickrflip/
Thats just to name a few there are probably thousands of homebrew apps out there at this point
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just because other people do it, does not make it legal or acceptable for you to do it.
And Google lost on the "it's only a hammer" part of their argument.
"There is no dispute that Google substantially assists Web sites to distribute their infringing copies to a worldwide market and assists a worldwide audience of users to access infringing material."
That part has been sent back for assessment of damages. The giving people a hammer part.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
you are missing my point
it is not me that is doing it
it is not my site in question that is displaying someone else's photos.. my site displays my photos
the TOS is tied to the API key, the user accepts that licenses before getting there key. so if they violate it then it is there wrongdoing not mine.
I understand not sharing other peoples photos.
i just want people to understand that if you publicly post your photos they will be everywhere. SERPs will get them, sites will mirror them
I got brought into this when i got a letter threating legal action. for something another website was doing
contact them not me
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
lumis edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, I suppose the lawyers could take the "sue them all, let the jury sort it out" approach, since there is case law that would support bringing you in to it.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
cool then
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I agree with lumis on this one. His program is a tool. If other people use it and violated the TOS, that is on them, not him.
Here's how I think about it. Let's say I download some photos from Flickr and make prints, which I then sell in a local craft market. Who does the photographer go after? Me? or Hewlett Packard, because I used their tool (the printer) to make the prints?
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just to nitpick - none of the images here: www.lumis.com/picture/2100174912/ - the main picture, the thumbnails, or the buddy icons - link back to their relevant page on Flickr, isn't that required by the Community Guidelines?
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The link at the bottom of the page (the Flickr icon) does link back to the site. Personally I'd want the link to be nearer the photo, or even the photo itself, so I'm not sure how Flickr would feel about this.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@ColleenM
This was resolved in law a long time ago. It is analogous to the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_....
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
yeah i can be a jerk when i get every person who finds his/her photos on google sending me e-mails like this...
you can rather easily resolve this so that you don't have to send out jerky retorts every time somebody complains.
you've been dealing with this for a looong time, so you know that people are touchy about copyrights, and often (understandably) confused about the API.
if it's too late to take down the link from the template, at least you could prepare a [polite] form letter stating your case. pretty simple, and you wouldn't have to get bent out of shape every time somebody whines.
you're the one who released it under GPL license with a linkback, so you have some responsibility here too. people can be clueless--deal with it.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ dbthayer
i think no response at all is a better policy from now on.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
lumis I only brought your name into this because when looking at the initial website, you were noted as the developer of the software. From that, who could judge if you had tailored the software for that site?
In looking at your site, I saw that you were using your own photos, so I let it go. You also advise your users to use their own images, which is great. I would have linked to the API ToS instead of the thread you linked in the Help Forum, but still, that does have staff pointers in it.
But when you told Colleen #5 If you don't want your images used by the Flickr API it is your
responsibility to disable this you can do this here
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/optout/?from=privacy and select
"Hide your photos from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API"
That is just not fully accurate. The onus is on the person with the API key to use the images they pull in compliance with the owner's license or copyright. There is a thread going in Flickr Ideas about Flickr making a whitelist available to us so that we can stop poor usage of our images on other sites. But telling Flickr users to totally opt-out of the API right now cripples our use of legitimate API applications.
I'm going to check out the websites you linked above; thanks for that list.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
webdev.yuan.cc/lfvr/
- Cannot get to server.
flickrseek.com/
- Pretty neat tool. No advertising. Displays thumbs or squares, click through goes to photo page. Has the standard disclaimers.
pviewr.713flash.com/
- Another neat tool, uses Flash to display images. Displays thumbs, click through produces a medium image with a link above photo to Flickr photo page. No ads.
flexplore.raum-fuer-notizen.de/flexplore/
- Produces small images on a black background, click produces a medium image. No link back to Flickr at all. Logo appears to violate Flickr API ToS.
www.fototickr.com
- Another neat tool, lots of thumbs and small images floating on a black background, click through to Flickr photo page. No ads.
www.endorphinum.de/flickrflip/
- Produces a Flash flip book of small images. No link back to photo page whatsover, though.
So, you see, some API apps are useful and in compliance with the Flickr ToS or the user's copyright, while some aren't. I'm not thrilled with the two sites you linked that provide no link back to the Flickr photo page, but the others are legit uses of the API.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
hmm. well, www.endorphinum.de/flickrflip/ does not provide a link-back to one's flickr photostream and my images are all ARR.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
frogmuseum2 edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Uh, yea, I said that in my post. :)
I suggest sending them an email asking about it.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oops...waited too long! zyrcster beat me to that...
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Walwyn
This was resolved in law a long time ago.
-----------
Someone ought to tell the judge at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last May, he made the ruling quoted above. Apparently he thinks that Google's use assists infringement and causes damages.
So, for some reason, he didn't buy that previous decision, and the most current case law says you CAN collect damages.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hmmm! I think you have that back to front.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Sony case was decided in 1984. The most current decision in the Google case is May, 2007.
I'm sure the 1984 decision was referenced numerous times in the briefs for the Google case. So, clearly, the judge made a different decision in 2007 in spite of the 23-year-old ruling for Sony.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I gather that by May 2007 you are talking about the Perfect 10 case. In that appeal judgement was in respect of the use of thumbnails.
On 16th May 2007, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco reversed the District Court on appeal on its fair use finding. "We conclude that Perfect 10 is unlikely to be able to overcome Google's fair use defense and, accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction regarding Google's use of thumbnail images,"
The earlier case had already found in favour of Google in accordance with the Sony judgement:
Contributory infringement
According to the Betamax case, secondary liability could not be found "based on presuming or imputing intent to cause infringement solely from the design or distribution of a product capable of substantial lawful use, which the distributor knows is in fact used for infringement" (as paraphrased by MGM v. Grokster). The court ruled that Google did not, in any case, facilitate infringement, essentially because "[infringing] websites existed long before Google Image Search was developed and would continue to exist were Google Image Search shut down". Therefore, the court found that P10 did not demonstrate its likelihood to succeed in a contributory infringement claim, and consequently denied injunctive relief.
Vicarious infringement
With respect to vicarious infringement, the court held that Google derived direct financial benefit from infringement of P10's copyright (in the form of AdWords and AdSense profits), but that it had no power to stop the infringements even if it knew of them. Therefore, the court found P10 unlikely to succeed in a vicarious infringement claim, and consequently denied injunctive relief.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Google_Inc
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The case is not over, however. While Ikuta rejected most of Perfect 10's arguments regarding direct liability for thumbnails, she found that the district court had failed to properly consider whether Google could be found liable under the Napster precedent for failing to respond adequately to Perfect 10's notifications that Google's search results linked to infringing content.
She sent the case back to the district court which will give more consideration to whether Google should have done more to remove links to infringing pages.'
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And?
As far as I can tell lumis has no control over the sites using the software.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The district court also erred in its secondary liability analysis because it failed to consider whether Google and Amazon.com knew of infringing activities yet failed to take reasonable and feasible steps to refrain from providing access to infringing images. Therefore we must also reverse the district court's holding that Perfect 10 was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its secondary liability claims. "
Here's a link to the judge's opinion in that case:
The part of the opinion I'm quoting is on page 47
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
But perhaps he does, under the Napster precedent, which ruled that an intermediary could be held responsible.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, the opinion refers to the Napster case as a precedent for holding Google liable.
Google was making the same arguments that lumis is. That because they didn't *control* the sites, they shouldn't be liable.
The judge said Google was wrong.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
*blink*
Napster had control over the network under which material was being copied. Amazon and Google have control over the servers that server up copies of infringing material. Lumis has no control over what users do with the program, and has no control over the systems or servers that are running the software. Lumis is in no position stop some one from infringing on copyright, and the software can be used by legitimate non infringing users. The napster decision just does not apply.
Google was making the same arguments that lumis is. That because they didn't *control* the sites, they shouldn't be liable.
The judge said Google was wrong.
No what was said was that Google should have reacted more quickly to remove infringing sites from it's index.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
True enough.
Posted 23 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
