|
I'm pretty sure we've seen this site before. It seems to be displaying the small size images.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Its using a flickr badge with random photos with the tags 'cornwall' + 'landsend'.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Stephen McGeown One thing you can do is to file a notice with Google Ads that the site is displaying your content without your approval. That can get the ads removed from the site (a source of their revenue -- bound to hurt).
You could also just contact the owner of the site and ask for your images to be removed from the site.
Should that fail, you can contact whoever hosts the site, and tell them the site owner is violating their Terms of Service.
Whois is your friend.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Thanks for the replies Walwyn - I appreciate that.
I was concerned specifically with finding out how to prevent it from using my photos in the first place.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster - you're a star. Thanks for the advice.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stephen McGeown Given that they are using the badge to pull tags, your choices (if you don't just want to contact the site owner) are to remove the tags from the images, or to go into You > Your Account > Privacy and Permissions and turn off the ability to search your stream.
Of course, this means that Flickr users running a tag search won't find your images, either.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Have you tried writing to them? I don't imagine that use of images as illustration in a commercial context without permissions would fly under German copyright laws. If they're using an API feed, I think that they're meant to have it approved by Flickr, and to be pulling only CC-Commercial images. They can't use an RSS feed for this, they can't limit themselves to CC-Commercial photos and that's Not a Good Thing. If you do write, you might want to point out to them that if they're just doing a search on "Cornwall," they will get anything and everything tagged "Cornwall" -- including, potentially, someone's collection of garbage in the streets of Cornwall towns, children's birthday parties (parents get awfully angry about this sort of thing), people being sick at parties, and someone looking for hot sex in Cornwall who hasn't properly filtered their photos.
edit -- Jeez you guys can write a lot while a girl is trying to type.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lú_ edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
|
Good luck. If you need help finding out who owns everything, let us know.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 It's the Badge, so it's not using the API.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If flickr can block the RSS feeds they can probably block the badge too.
Alternatively as they are using tags there is the wii attack.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wii attack?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A number of photos were tagged with 'wii' that made a point about yahoo's use of flickr images on wii pages.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wii attack
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm so behind the curve. Thanks.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Yes they should only be pulling the CC-Commercial images images just like Yahoo News does.
news.yahoo.com/localnews/12787537/Omaha+NE
The only thing that I don't like about the Yahoo News feed is that it says user-submitted photos. When I found one of my photos here it had nothing to do with Omaha news. They just pull from the tags of Omaha and nebraska (I put location in all of my photos).
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm going to write to this company asking them politely to refrain from using my images. Hopefully that will put a stop to this cheeky practice.
Thanks again everyone :-)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hi there. I'm working at the office that is responsible for the named website. if using the flickr badge is violating any rights of your pics - we will remove it. we do not want to "steal" any of your photos. so, please give me 24 hours to check that. afterwards we will find a solution, ok?
sorry for my bad english....
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Good luck, Stephen. If you could let us know how you get on, I'm sure we'd find this useful.
Thanks.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
stylespion
Thanks for responding!
Most people who complain are those who have All Rights Reserved or Non-Commercial Creative Commons licenses on their photos. If your tag search doesn't remove those images before it creates the display, you're going to get complaints.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
And if you are pulling in your images with nothing more than tags, you should consider at least some human oversight. Because anyone can tag their images with anything, as mentioned above. So people coming to your site think you've chosen the images purposefully, yet some of them may make no sense at all for what you expect them to be.
Or worse, you could find, using "Cornwall" as an example, an image of a naked guy sitting on a wall, with a cob of corn shoved up his butt. That may not put your site in the best light for your customers.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Or worse, you could find, using "Cornwall" as an example, an image of a naked guy sitting on a wall, with a cob of corn shoved up his butt.
Off searching unfiltered porn to add tags to, back later.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher wrote Or worse, you could find, using "Cornwall" as an example, an image of a naked guy sitting on a wall, with a cob of corn shoved up his butt. That may not put your site in the best light for your customers.
I almost swallowed my sour candy whole reading that.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
...and there I was intending to have corn on the cob for dinner.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It is pulling ARR images to the badge as well as a variety of CC'd ones
eg www.flickr.com/photos/adamclutterbuck/519747125/
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
stylespion - Thank you very much for responding. I appreciate you noticing this topic and getting in touch.
I think most people agree that a commercial organisation should ask for permission first before using people's photographs. It is a simple matter of politeness and courtesy.
In this situation my photos are marked "All rights reserved" which means nobody can use them without my permission as they are my property. (Note to self: is that true?)
Hopefully we can resolve this situation and let everyone know the full story. If it's not done to my satisfaction then we shall take some other path.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
Stephen McGeown edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
|
It is a simple matter of politeness and courtesy. ... In this situation my photos are marked "All rights reserved" which means nobody can use them without my permission as they are my property. (Note to self: is that true?)
Actually, it's a matter not just of politeness and courtesy, but of law. Nobody can use your intellectual property without your permission except for certain contexts defined by law, which vary country to country.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, hello again. Today i'm going to check, how we are going to find a solution. But first of all, i'd like to tell you some facts.
The Site is not about selling "Tours" or anything else. In fact the site isn't selling anything at all. It's pure information about England. The ads are paying the server costs, but it's not a commercial project.
We did not include your images. We included a flickr badge, that flickr offers siteowners to include in their site. As you allready found out: this little script does a tagsearch in the flickr database, and is displaying thumbnails of photos, linking to the original image on flickr. by now, i checked the site, and it did not show any pic of you at all.
Sites like last.fm and thousands of other sites do the same thing...
BUT: If flickr is, by offering a script like the one mentioned above, violating any rights on pictures of their users, - it's flickrs part, to make sure, no copyrights get violated - at least, offering a creative commons filter would be nice.
Me, as a flickr user, not as the guy working on "england seiten", appreciates that thumbnails of my pics are shown to as many people, as possible. Because, that's the reason for putting them on the web.
That's just my thougts... as i said, i'm going to check what we can do about it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
stylespion flickr is not "offering" anything. It is up to you to ensure that your use does not beach copyright. Your argument is as crap as the argument that because photocopiers exist there is a universal permission to copy anything,regardless of copyright.
Whether you choose to violate people's rights is your call, not the manufacturer of the photocopier's. It is YOUR obligation to ensure that YOU do not breach copyright.
Take some responsibility for yourself.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
>BUT: If flickr is, by offering a script like the one mentioned above, violating any rights on pictures of their users, - it's flickrs part, to make sure, no copyrights get violated
I'm afraid that's tosh.
If Ferrari, by offering a car like the 430 capable of speeds over 70mph, - it's Ferrari's part, to make sure, no speed limits get violated.
Doesn't really scan does it?
Sure Flickr can offer more sophisticated tools, but nevertheless, if you use any tool on your site, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure no copyrights get violated.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ok, now a few thoughts of my own.
"The ads are paying the server costs, but it's not a commercial project."
non-profit, or your inability to turn a profit, has nothing to do with the commercial nature of ads on your site. The whole point behind "non-commercial" is that images can be used, unless there's any money to be had with their involvement. In which case, we'd like a cut. Google gets a cut, you get a cut, so we would want a cut too. or else no use.
"thousands of other sites do the same thing"
welcome to the "those assholes are stealing cars, so why can't I?" defense. Try again.
"that's the reason for putting them on the web."
No. that's the reason you put them on the web. The reason millions of other people put them on the web, are their own, and about as numerous. And a little more clarification; people put their images on Flickr, not some podunk tour site. There are many uses that not only infringe on our rights, but can actually devalue our images, because they're associated with crap we don't want them associated with. Thus licenses.
"it's flickrs part, to make sure, no copyrights get violated"
And finally. No, it isn't. As ALL of the DOCUMENTATION on Flickr, on badges, on the API, on virtually EVERY element of Flickr, explains to those who read: The sole responsibility of making sure you are using images appropriately and with permission, resides with you. This is otherwise known as the "leaving car keys in the car must mean it's ok to steal it" defense.
Try again.
And by that, I mean, do what you need to do about it. Cease to use images that you do not have permission, or do not allow for commercial use (and by the way, the license for those, on the Creative Commons site, explains what commercial use means. Might try reading that, too.) And quit blaming everyone except yourself for your lack of understanding and mistakes.
Easy peasy.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@stylespion
in your profile here on Flickr, you have written in bold that people must ask permission before using your photos!!!!!!!!
But using everyone elses is ok?
LMAO
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
So, I've lost count - how many threads on this basic problem have there been over the last few weeks? Seems that every other day, someone reports some idiot mis-using ARR or CC images on their site, be it by API or Badge....
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
stylespion OK, so the website is not a tour company. It doesn't really matter and I don't think you get the point we're all raising here - the improper usage of copyright material.
I am very happy for people to look at my photos but there is a world of a difference in looking at them and using them. Contrary to what you are saying, my photos did appear on the england-seiten website. I have the stats to prove it and I even saw a photo of my wife on that page!
You have to acknowledge responsibility here.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Everyone - stylespion and I are going to discuss this privately. Hopefully we'll get a resolution to this soon.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stephen McGeown A resolution for you or everyone?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand I'm not sure if it will be a resolution for everyone. We have opened up a dialogue with flickr themselves to explain what has happened so this is a good first step I hope.
Because I now realise it's not a commercial operation I am less uptight about it. I had feared it was blatant profiteering but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I can see how this has happened and, in this particular instance, I don't believe any opportunistic behaviour was intended, nor was it a premeditated breach of copyright. It seems to be carelessness and an inability to read through the small print of the flickr Terms of Use.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I am very happy for people to look at my photos but there is a world of a difference in looking at them and using them.
Indeed. "Photo sharing" seems to confuse many people, making them think it means they can used by anyone by whatever way. It does not. It really means that you can look, but not touch, unless specifically given a permission after an inquire to get that permission is made.
Like, if you share a big secret with your best friend, it does not mean that your friend can tell it to anyone they want simply because you "shared" your secret with them. And after you told them not to tell anyone. That's like having ARR marking on people's photopages.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
in this particular instance, I don't believe any opportunistic behaviour was intended, nor was it a premeditated breach of copyright. It seems to be carelessness and an inability to read through the small print of the flickr Terms of Use.
That is why this was given a bit of slack yesterday.
However this is just going to raise everyone's hackles and disperse what ever goodwill there was yesterday.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, his first post was a vastly better line to take...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure they will get things worked out.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Get ahead of ourselves? ???
It is the company using the images without permission who are ahead of themselves. Ignorance is not the same as innocence. They are using ARR images without permission, they should immediately stop, and then they can talk about it if they want to.
:-)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Walwyn Yeah, I know, he didn't do himself any favours with that post you highlighted. None of those arguments/excuses were acceptable. I believe he realises he's in the wrong and was a bit defensive. Anyhoo, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and we're talking about it offline, which is good.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Suggest to him that unless you two reach a resolution that includes violations other than yours, he's going to have to have a LOT of these offline conversations.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi ColleenM, I am assuming that if he abandons that specific technique of indiscriminate photo retrieval then nobody else's photos will get dragged in either. Here's hoping anyway!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I don't get that of the conversation. It's very clear that they're using the wrong tool for what they want so, what's there to talk about?
They should be looking for sugesttions to make what they want without trodding on other people's rights: using a group, a third party widget, a home-made one, etc. Nothing more.
Or perhaps it's about that that you are discussing? If so, they would be better off asking the community at large, not just you. IMHO
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
