|
|
Have you requested that they remove your image?
Not sure why you removed the name of the site and the link, surely you'd want people to be able to have a look..
Might as well remove the image link as well - it's to a "private" image, which no-one will be able to see...
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Exactly, nobody should be able to see it but these characters are able to bypass the flickr defenses and know this image is there and link to it. That is why we made it private when we reuploaded the replacement page. Within five minutes though they had replaced the image with the new one we uploaded. How do they do that??? You cannot see it, but they can??
And there are no contact details on the site, none that we can find at all.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is it possible that someone involved in the site is one of your contacts, and able to see your images? That'd possibly explain how they could access the re-uploaded and "private" image.
Might be worth running a "who is" on the site, to find out who's behind it; it'll at least give you an address to send the "Take my image down, you thief" e-mail to!
I'd also be sending flicker a Help request ASAP - if it's some sort of privacy violation, they may be able to do something.
After all, if they're accessing your images, they can be accessing everybody else's as well.....
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is it a cache issue?
I had a problem the other week with a photo I wanted to remove from a website. I tried rotating left and right but the image remained. Finally worked out that was linked there was the original size and the rotate trick didn't work. Eventually I just deleted the image and re-uploaded.
@Dr Keats
Its highly unlikely that anyone at flickr would do that, it would be a cause for dismissal I'm sure.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, I was asking if it's possible that one of his contacts is someone involved with the site which keeps uploading the image, not someone at Flickr...
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes we have taken that advice and found out who is behind the domain and sent them a take it down at once thief email - hopefully they will comply!?!
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Or, if you've ever posted the image to a group, then any group member is able to view it. Even if you've replaced the image, once they've gotten it, they have it, a copy of their very own.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay this web site claims to have a legitimate Flickr API. Here is the web page where the image is being displayed:
www.xyhd.tv/2007/07/gaming/which-console-is-right-for-you...
The owner of this site claims it is a problem between me and Flickr:
"...images are generated automatically using flickr's API, and
only returns thumbnails. It is my understanding, that Flickr's TOS allow for this. As long as the thumbnail takes you to the original post, which it does...If the Current TOS does not allow this, then I will have our developers modify the code to comply the current TOS from Flickr...If it is found that Flickr is violating your copyright through its results you will have to contact Flickr."
But starters this web page is NOT displaying thumbnails. These images are small size. Why is Flickr allowing a site to display small size images instead of thumbnails.
Secondly, why are my images being included in this listing because I have adopted the "Hide your photos from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API?" option!!! This is happening again and again and again and Flickr just seems to turn a blind eye.
Why are Flickr allowing my copyright images to be continuously abused like this???
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Secondly, why are my images being included in this listing because I have adopted the "Hide your photos from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API?" option!!! This is happening again and again and again and Flickr just seems to turn a blind eye.
As I keep repeating in various threads, to fully opt-out of an API search on Flickr, it is not enough to check the box to hide your photos from searches via the API. You must also hide your profile, which is set in a different place. That way the API cannot pick you up by screen name, either.
Replacing the image will not remove it from an API application as you stated in your OP, either, since it pulls the database link to the image, not the image url.
Are your images ARR or CC-No Commercial? Because this site is a commercial site, and you have grounds to file an NOI with them regardless of their lousy email they sent you.
And you are correct, those are not thumbnails, so Fair Use does not apply.
Personally, I think their key needs to be pulled, but that's for staff to decide.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They are using the small size images, this is not a fair-use and if they don't stop it flickr will pull their API key. You can refer them to this thread:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/61760
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As far as I can see, all F2's images are ARR. Their email means nothing; they have no right to use these images. Unfortunately, this seems to be a Tuvalu-registered domain, so the best course seems to be to get Flickr to revoke their API key.
I see know reason why Flickr should not comply; the site does appear to be infringing in several ways.
Drop Flickr a Help-by-Email and hopefully they'll nail them.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster: Replacing the image will not remove it from an API application as you stated in your OP, either, since it pulls the database link to the image, not the image url.
This is the strange thing about it because this morning after replacing the image constantly and getting nowhere we uploaded the same image anew, using the upload link found at the bottom of the page, so it couldn't be linked to the original image. And yet this newly uploaded image appeared on the same web page within minutes. How is that possible? I have never seen that before - API or no API.
MichaelSmith: Drop Flickr a Help-by-Email and hopefully they'll nail them.
We have so hopefully something will happen.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
F-2 Because it's using the API key to dynamically generate content. When the image appears on Flickr, an API application will pull if it's configured to do so. No magic there, that's how the API works.
Did you state that you are hiding your photos from an API search?
Because this thing seems to be pulling them from tags, not screen name. And it should not do that if you have opted out of the API search.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Upload a couple more with the same tags saying "XYHD.TV are a bunch of thieves".
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We did that and the strange thing is suddenly the image disappeared from this web page until we uploaded the previous image. This is why it seemed so strange. When it had the "Stolen Image" message on it the image disappeared from the XYHD.TV page, but when we uploaded the original Wii image suddenly it reappeared. It was as though somebody human was watching and making the changes manually.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, I am hiding all my images from API search.
Okay I have uploaded another brand new image, and changed it's name from the previous one, but this one has no tags and I made the last one a private image. It remains to be seen what happens.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you are hiding your images from the API, and it is returning tagged photos of yours, I'm starting to think that it's using an RSS feed, despite that they state they are using the API.... otherwise, something would be seriously amiss with the block API feature.
You cannot block yourself from an RSS feed, either, unless you don't tag, title, or describe anything or you make everything private. But you shouldn't have to do all that.
Flickr has pulled RSS feeds from non-compliant websites before, so we'll have to see what they say about this website.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
On a sidenote: no matter what the legal implications are of displaying small sized images. It is stated clearly in the API TOS, that you can request to be blacklisted, and they have to comply within 24 hours.
I just learned this myself. :-)
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unless you are using an RSS feed for personal use, or displaying thumbnails only. It is almost impossible to stay within the terms of the API or RSS feed usage.
The tag usage also leaves you vulnerable to the 'wii' attack and whilst F-2's message image may have been removed from the site in question it will be being displayed on every other computer in the world that accessing the API or RSS through similar tags. The site owners may like to take that into account too.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We received another reply from a XYHD.TV's web site owner:
Complain if you see fit. The image embedded on the page is
farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2353420005_f47fc554b3_m.jpg which is a 11k and had dimensions of 194x240. This is a thumbnail. I read the forum posts you sent www.flickr.com/help/forum/61760 and they support my stance.
I also had my legal department review the TOS and they found my position defensible. In the event I hear from flickr I will persue the matter pursuant with their requirements.
As yet we have heard nothing from Flickr staff on this matter apart from an automated reply after we submitted our complaint to Flickr.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm wondering on what grounds his lawyers have found that position defensible. That sentence has a wrong ring, somehow.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
They are talking nonesense my friend.
Your image is marked: © All rights reserved
This means they cannot use it. Period.
The flickr TOS state as much.
If they (XYHD.TV) choose to ignore the Terms of Service then I suspect their flickr API will quickly vanish as others have said.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We have produced a graphic making it very clear to XYHD.TV what is a small image and what is a thumbnail - according to Flickr's descriptions:
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
I read the forum posts you sent www.flickr.com/help/forum/61760 and they support my stance.
What? Eric blocked the RSS feeds to the site. The images there appear to be static which is not what I'd expect with a tag based search on 'wii' and as you said when you replaced the image with something derogatory to HDTV it disappeared from the site.
So they've had their chance to do the right thing. Send a NOI to google ad-sense, they'll remove their ads within a day or so. Click 'Report a violation" on this page:
services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http://www.xyhd.tv/2...
Also you can complain to their web host:
OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 75 Broad Street
Address: 2nd Floor
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US
NetRange: 72.51.0.0 - 72.51.63.255
CIDR: 72.51.0.0/18
NetName: PEER1-BLK-08
NetHandle: NET-72-51-0-0-1
Parent: NET-72-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.PEER1.NET
NameServer: NS2.PEER1.NET
Comment: For abuse issues please e-mail abuse@peer1.net.
All
Comment: other inquiries can be directed to support@peer1.net.
Our 24 x 7 NOC is
Comment: available at 866-484-2588
RegDate: 2005-07-05
Updated: 2006-11-09
RNOCHandle: ZP55-ARIN
RNOCName: Peer1 Network Inc.
RNOCPhone: 1-604-683-7747
RNOCEmail: net-admin@peer1.net
OrgAbuseHandle: NSA-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Peer 1 Network AUP Enforcement
OrgAbusePhone: 1-604-484-2588
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@peer1.net
OrgTechHandle: ZP55-ARIN
OrgTechName: Peer1 Network Inc.
OrgTechPhone: 1-604-683-7747
OrgTechEmail: net-admin@peer1.net
OrgName: ServerBeach
OrgID: SERVE-32
Address: Suite 425 600 West 7th Street
City: Los Angeles
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90017
Country: US
NetRange: 72.51.32.0 - 72.51.47.255
CIDR: 72.51.32.0/20
NetName: PEER1-SERVERBEACH-06A
NetHandle: NET-72-51-32-0-1
Parent: NET-72-51-0-0-1
NetType: Reallocated
NameServer: NS1.SERVERBEACH.COM
NameServer: NS2.SERVERBEACH.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2007-01-19
Updated: 2007-01-19
RTechHandle: HOSTM325-ARIN
RTechName: Hostmaster
RTechPhone: 1-210-225-4725
RTechEmail: hostmaster@serverbeach.com
OrgAbuseHandle: SNAE-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Serverbeach Network AUP Enforcement
OrgAbusePhone: 1-604-484-2588
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@serverbeach.com
OrgTechHandle: ZZ4092-ARIN
OrgTechName: ipadmin
OrgTechPhone: 1-210-225-4725
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@serverbeach.com
And this page tells you what to do in cases of copyright violation:
www.peer1.com/aboutus/aup.php
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
F-2: I'm curious; why are you telling them that it's OK to use your image as long as it's the 100px thumbnail? IMHO, if they want to claim fair-use, it's up to them to demonstrate the claim, not for you to acknowledge it unasked. If I were you, I would stick to the lack of any permission and the copyright infringement, not give them arms to combat you.
disclaimer: IANAL
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The argument has been about the size of the images being used on the XYHD.TV site. XYHD.TV's web site owner has insisted again and again that the images he is using on his site are in face thumbnails and we have had another message where he states the following:
"The Definition of thumbnail is not defined in pixels in any legal document we were able to uncover, but was determined in a case against Google to be 12 per screen.
I'm not telling them that is okay to use OUR image if it is 100 pixels, but rather, according to Flickr's rules, if they describe an image as thumbnail then it must be that smaller size and not the larger size. I merely used my image as an example. There are some on Flickr who do allow images to be included with 3rd party API and yet their images are should still be displayed as a thumbnail according to Flickr's rules and not what this character determines.
Hopefully Flickr will act on this matter soon because it seems to be challenging the very heart of the rules here on Flickr.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Just because an image is a thumbnail doesn't make it's use legit -- there hasn't been, as far as I've seen in my searches yet, a single case in which fair use has been found to be there entirely because of thumbnail-sized images. This "thumbnail = fair use" thing is an internet myth, alongside the the "blog = fair use" myth and the "I can see it on the internet therefore it's in the public domain" myth.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"here are some on Flickr who do allow images to be included with 3rd party API and yet their images are should still be displayed as a thumbnail according to Flickr's rules"
I'd like to see the Flickr rule that requires this.
I'm not aware of any Community Guideline or ToS that specifies a size requirement.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So are you saying then that those who have APIs are allowed to display whatever size they want to that there is no need to display a small size image?
I'm getting confused here!
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
F-2, the graphic you created is demonstrably false, as the word "thumbnail" does not appear in either the API TOS, the Flickr user TOS, or the community guidelines.
have you actually read these documents?
as for the "small" size not being a "thumbnail" - yes it is true that flickr doesn't call it a thumbnail, but their is no strict legal definition of what a thumbnail is.
for example, the google image search thumbnails which were at issue in a recent circuit court decision which refers to thumbnail size contributing to fair use are larger in size than what flickr labels as "thumbnails", but smaller than the small size.
i wouldn't go so far as to say the "small" size is or is not a thumbnail, since there is no strict definition of what a thumbnail is, other than "smaller than the suggested display size".
anyway, not that i don't feel your pain and so on, but you should probably read the API TOS before claiming it says things that it does not in fact say, like you do here:
www.flickr.com/photos/fatheroftwo/2361132618/
and anyway .. just because flickr labels a certain image size as "thumbnail" doesn't mean that other sizes of images cannot also be considered thumbnails. as the average screen resolution increases year by year, our standards of what is a thumbnail and what isn't will change.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The thumbnail issue derives from Perfect 10 vs Google and Kelly vs Arriba cases where use of thumbnail images as index buttons to larger size images found by their internet search engines, were considered fair-use.They were found to be fair-use on the bases that a) the thumbs were transformative in there use as link buttons to the images rather than images in their own right, b) that the thumbs did not replace the larger size images as you couldn't use them in place of the larger images, c) that the search engine was a public good and that there was no permissions market of thumbnail images.
In the Kelly vs Arriba case the thumbnails were found to be fair-use for the reasons stated above, but Arriba also hotlinked Kelly's larger size images and displayed those on Arriba's web pages. That use was found to not be fair and Kelly was awarded $345,000 for the copyright violation. Note that images of Kelly's used by Arrinba and found to be infringing were smaller than size of the images used by XYHD.TV
Additionally XYHD.TV is not a search engine it simple uses the results of a search engine. The use of the images by XYHD.TV is not transformative the use is a simple to tart up their otherwise tedious drivel. As Kelly showed there is a market for small size images for web purposes. In fact anything bigger than the small size is general too big for these pages.
Now that the Easter holiday is over staff should be back on top of things.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
striatic you sound like you are representing XYHD.TV's web site owner!
The fact remains that Flickr describes one as a thumbnail image and the other as a small image. XYHD.TV is using the small image size and NOT the thumbnail size as per Flickr's determination.
The fact also remains that XYHD.TV is using a copyright image of mine and has repeatedly refused to remove this image from their web site.
XYHD.TV has stolen this image from me!
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Then, you're best off to file a DMCA notice against them...
And, as Walwyn noted earlier, send an NOI to Google Ad-Sense...
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Note:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with network security policy.
URL: www.xyhd.tv/2007/07/gaming/which-console-is-right-for-you...
Solution: Report the URL to your OfficeScan administrator if you think it is safe to access.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Our Wii image is now no longer on the original page where we found it being used originally, but they are now displaying it on another page, strangely with the other image, very odd:
www.xyhd.tv/2008/03/site-announcements/xyhdtv-proudly-ann...
We have again heard from XYHD.TV's web site owner:
"Your images violate Nintendo's Trademark. So you will have a very hard time enforcing a copyright."
So it would appear the reason this character is refusing to remove my copyright image from his web site is because he claims I have broken Nintendo's copyright. So apparently that makes it alright for him to steal my image?? Strange reasoning.
Sadly, we have heard nothing about this matter from anyone at Flickr?!?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
I like the stolen image of yours that is appearing.
Stop wasting your time with this clown, and file a ToU violation with their web host. I'll see if I can dig that up for you.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
According to Sam Spade, www.xyhd.tv is hosted at
samspade.org/whois/www.xyhd.tv
samspade.org/whois/72.51.39.235
Peer1.net
Their AuP and reporting instructions are here:
www.peer1.com/aboutus/aup.php
Further, they use Google Ads on their site. The Google DMCA take-down info is here:
www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=18386
Honestly, it's time to take this to the next level.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay we have made an application to peer1 and the Google DMCA take-down page. (on the Google page it also had a section which detailed adult material on a page where their ads are located and because of the mature content being discussed on this page we added this too to the violations XYHD.TV has committed)
Hopefully these two organisations will be more forthcoming than Flickr has been!
Thank you very much for your help with this zyrcster - I appreciate it very much. I believe that copyright violations are a very serious matter and the only way to answer copyright criminals is to come down on them like a ton of bricks each and every time they violate the law.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now, isn't that strange. My image has disappeared suddenly from the XYHD.TV web site and it did so right after I announced that I had made a complaint to peer1 and the Google DMCA take-down page. And the link to the lewd item has also been removed. Maybe XYHD.TV's web site owner is an avid reader of these forums? And maybe the moment things changed to hardball, he bailed out? Who knows...
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Are they still pulling any Flickr images?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yep, they are still pulling Flickr ARR images.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes there are lots of Flickr images, many of them Copyright all rights reserved.
I don't think Flickr is taking any notice that XYHG.TV is abusing our copyright and showing images that it shouldn't.
Why doesn't Flickr act, after all this is something which Flickr can take action on.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I dunno. Try changing the title of your opening post to
xyhd.tv is thieving Flickr ARR images
and see what might happen.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brandon N. Wirtz is not an avid reader of the forum, and as I explained, I was traveling until Wednesday and would be Unable to remove your image before then. However it seems you left that out of your account of the story.
You didn't seem to mention that you would not provide your legal contact information or even your name. Or that the take down request you sent was not from your domain, and there fore there was no means to verify that you did in fact own the image.
You also failed to mention that the conversation was flagged personal and confidential.
Engineering a solution was made harder by dealing with the Paper work to file a response to your DMCA violation, which was met with a counter claim.
The Solution that was implimented was made even harder by your deliberate attempt to appear in search results.
Apparently Flickr did not see fit to contact me before dis-allowing my site from presenting flickr images including my own. I would suspect that means you forwarded less than complete versions of my correspondence.
As to your Copyright and violations. Do you think that your picture of a Wii is of any more use to me than any other picture of a Wii? Most Flickr Users who share their photos do so because they want the traffic that comes from sites like mine.
As to the Adult content Link I assume you are referring to the Horror After Dark Google Ad that was running on the page at the time.
Brandon N. Wirtz
XYHD.tv
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_greene Oh dear. You do understand that is YOUR obligation to ensure that YOU comply with copyright law? Was the image yours? Did you have an express right to use it? If not, you should not have used it, and you should have removed it regardless of any problems you might have had with the complainant.
Pretty simple.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_green, glad you could join the conversion.
If Flickr pulled your feed, it is because you were pulling All Rights Reserved images from the Flickr site -- this is a flagrant disregard for copyright on your part, and it is immaterial as to the content of the images.
You need permission to use the small size of any image on your commercial website. For that, I suggest you stick to finding images that are licensed CC - Commercial.
I suggest you talk to your attorneys about copyright law.
It is also immaterial that you believe that many Flickr users want the exposure from your site. The reality is, many don't want such exposure off-Flickr and have not licensed their photos so that people like you cannot use them. Also, if a Flickr user decides to leave their photos available via searches, that is also immaterial to their copyright.
Face it, you haven't legal ground to stand on here.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And even if you did, you'd still be violating Flickr's rules regarding the API Terms of Service. Those pesky rules are always a good idea to read before using a tool. I know it seems like there's this big huge cornucopia of freebies that you can leech off of just sitting here.
But if you can't do it right, you don't get to play.
And as an aside, as you and even Yahoo has since learned the hard way, it is a lazy, terrible idea to rely on an automated generation of images based on tags for site decoration. People can tag their photos anything they want, which can [and does] lead to embarrassing displays on otherwise professional web sites.
Nothing replaces a little extra work and vetting the images that appear on your site. Or paying fair market value for them, for that matter.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand I did make every effort to comply. How would you respond if I sent Flickr a notice saying I owned your picutres?
It is important to verify that the complainee actually is who he says he is. With out so much as a First name I do not typically act on legal notices sent to me.
I have complied with numerous requests from Getty Image to remove Flickr hosted images which were not owned by the uploader. when Getty contacts me they include their legal contact information, and I don't ask for much proof, just that they contact me from the domain that their organization uses, or that they provide a phone number that is answered by someone who says "Getty Images" when I call it.
I have also responded to a request by a parent who disliked that their child appeared on a page for RockStar Game's Bully. Because the message was sent in a professional manner, and included contact information, and I thought the concern was valid I removed their image.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I dunno 5 days in abeyance and as soon as flickr pull the feed up pops the site admin to whine.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_greene wrote I have also responded to a request by a parent who disliked that their child appeared on a page for RockStar Game's Bully. This would never had been an issue if you asked permission first, or only used photos that are licensed and allow for commercial use.
I think that's the main point of this.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So it matters not to you that you're including images that are All Rights Reserved, without making payment or gaining permission for their use first? Regardless of an individual takedown request, that's the bit that goes against the API terms of service.
It isn't our responsibility to police the internets for near-constant infringement. It is yours to just not infringe.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_greene You are ignoring the fact that you were pulling All Rights Reserved images via your application.
Did you even ask permission of those photo's authors prior to using the ARR images?
No, I didn't think so.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand I did make every effort to comply. How would you respond if I sent Flickr a notice saying I owned your picutres?
You knew for a fact that it wasn't yours, and you knew for a fact that you didn't have permission to use it irrespective of who the owner was.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_greene No. You must have known you did not own the picture. How do you justify using it?
It doesn't matter whether the complainant did, or did not, own them. You must have known that you did not. Therefore you should not have used them. Copyright exists regardless of whether you get caught.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually the query from the code I use shouldn't pull images out of compliance...
curl_setopt($curl_handle,CURLOPT_URL,'http://flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&ss=0&ct=0&q='.$kwsearch);
Not my code. Part of a Wordpress plugin used by a few thousand people.
Easy to gang up on me as I was out of town for 5 days. And F2 had a week head start bashing me.
Doesn't matter what I say y'all think I'm the bad guy, I get it. Have fun.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
curl_setopt($curl_handle,CURLOPT_URL,'http://flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&ss=0&ct=0&q='.$kwsearch);
Hmm, well that should only be pulling CC licensed photos that allow commercial use.
If that's indeed what you are using, then it makes no sense that any ARR photos are being pulled.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
drake_greene I think you're acting like a jerk for not just saying, "Hey, wow, we thought we were pulling only CC-Commercial licensed photos, and it turns out we aren't. I am so sorry, and we will work with our team to ensure that we only pull the correctly licensed photos from now on," instead of whining about F-2 and how unfair we all are for telling you to not infringe on copyright.
Have fun yourself with your broken plug-in. Next time, try actually testing an app before you use it.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The good news is that drake_greene's most recent post is more contrite that the one he deleted. Which is not saying much.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually the query from the code I use shouldn't pull images out of compliance...
Complain if you see fit. The image embedded on the page is
farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2353420005_f47fc554b3_m.jpg which is a 11k and had dimensions of 194x240. This is a thumbnail. I read the forum posts you sent www.flickr.com/help/forum/61760 and they support my stance.
I also had my legal department review the TOS and they found my position defensible. In the event I hear from flickr I will persue the matter pursuant with their requirements.
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/68952/417816/
Are the bells still ringing in your ears?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Apparently Flickr didn't find your position defensible. And since they hold the keys to the API goodie chest, that's about all that matters.
Complaining about possibly faulty code that could mean thousands of others are also infringing, doesn't really help you. That's like saying the ATM was spitting out hundred dollar bills for hours, it's not your fault you sat there pocketing them, everyone else was too. It's your site, step up and take some responsibility for it.
[ps: there was nothing to "bash" until you showed up and started in with wrong-headed claims. So there's no head start, we're riffing off what you're saying now, not what's been posted all week.]
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We did test. I manage over 70 sites. The part of the day that wasn't spent dealing with the mess created by was spent testing the code to figure out why it would pull a file that is ARR.
The Plugin doesn't use the API, so likely search is mildly flakey. Over the next few weeks the other sites in our network will get an upgrade to our own version of the plugin. And we'll share the code with the Plugin author in compliance with the OpenSource License.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This string:http://flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&ss=0&ct=0&q=
works to pull up CC-Commercial licenses. I just tried it on a search term, and I couldn't find one image in 10 pages that was licensed otherwise.
As far as testing goes, when F2 first complained to you about it, you could have gone directly to your website, as we did, and seen for yourself that ARR images were being pulled. That should have rung a bell or two, no?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@zyrcster
I don't think its worth spending any more time on this guy. He's been in contact with F2 throughout the five days, he seems to have been insistent throughout the time that F2 could go whistle, and even managed to moved the display of the image from one page on the site to another.
Caught and spanked.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I manage over 70 sites.
and you're pulling ARR images in the other 69 too?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, which is why we are spending time to resolve the issue.
Another spot in the code it caches result... It appears that if a file is not ARR the first time the code finds it, then the image is forever in the system. The results are somewhat randomized with code that was added by another user which tracks which images get clicked and those are presented more often, but not every time.
I have cleared the Cache on all of the sites, and modified the code to expire the cache after 48 hours, so that the longest an image that is flagged incorrectly can be displayed is 48 hours. Some of you will argue that this should be 24 or instant, well unfortunately many sites would exceed the number of queries a day that Yahoo permits for other sites.
And Yes I told F2 he could go whistle. Anyone who send me an anonymous e-mail implying that I intentionally violated his copyright, with malice intent, gets a go whistle response. But they also get the we will look in to the matter as part of that response. Which we did.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
to be fair, if you take a moment to read the creative commons requirements, you would see that CC licenses are irrevocable (assuming proper use). So if you pull in a CC licensed image and the owner changes it later, any previous use is still valid.
However, all CC licenses require attribution and a display of the license with each image. Failure to do so invalidates the license.
I know, freebies are so complicated.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'll weigh in on this with some minor prejudice. I do know Brandon. He's a stand up guy who takes a fairly strong stance on copyright in general. While you all throw him to the wolves, I think the point he brings up about not attempting to be anonymous while staking a legal claim is an important one. You cannot demand your rights be observed while hiding behind an alias and expect to be taken seriously.
My own photos on Flickr are listed as ARR. The ARR statement is on every individual image page. My photos do show up in Flickr API queries because I haven't explicitly disabled the API. This is important to the entire thread.
The ARR designation does NOT mean your photos will not show via the Flickr API. That is a flaw in the Flickr API. It is unreasonable to expect someone using the API to check thousands or potentially millions of photos to verify the ARR designation when making a query. Flickr should be disabling access to those photos via the API by default. Currently ARR means nothing in the context of the way the API works.
Brandon and others like him using the API should not be the ones attacked on this issue. Yahoo should be pressured to tighten up the code on the API to make sure that there are no inconsistencies.
And for those of you who are strongly in favor of seeing copyright upheld, I urge you to pick a celebrity name at random, do a search on Flickr, and start reporting the thousands of copyright violations that exist right here.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakeludington wrote It is unreasonable to expect someone using the API to check thousands or potentially millions of photos to verify the ARR designation when making a query. The Terms of Use of the API require just that. So you can argue that it's too hard, but if the terms require it, then you are required to do it.
Just for reference, once again: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. [emphasis mine]
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Brenda_Anderson: You make the assumption that an unreasonable provision of the TOS would hold up in court if tested. IANAL, but it's fairly clear that Flickr could easily render it impossible to expose AAR images to the API and have simply opted not to.
It is on the individual user's shoulders (myself included) to make a best effort to lock down any portions of the service that the individual user does not want their photos exposed to. It's clear in this case that F2 did so after making his complaint or his photos would have never appeared in the API search.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you think that it is unreasonable...
What sort of API calls are you using that you can't check the license??
flickr.photos.search (which a website that is displaying photos to illustrate a subject matter would probably use) has license as an optional input.
flickr.photos.getinfo returns the license for each individual photo
etc.
Flickr is not even required to offer the APIs, so I can't see how you would be able to argue that the TOS is unreasonable. If it's unreasonable, then don't use it!
*edit to say*
Now, it might be better of the API just didn't return any photos that weren't licensed ... but it is not set up like that now, so I think developers need to take that into account.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakeludington This: It is on the individual user's shoulders (myself included) to make a best effort to lock down any portions of the service that the individual user does not want their photos exposed to. is pure, unadulterated crap. It is incumbent on the person who uses the photos to ensure there is no breach of copyright, or any other restriction. If that is too hard source your photos from somewhere else. It is never MY responsibility to ensure that YOU do not break the law.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not a programmer, so it's quite possible that I don't understand the full implications of the API and how it works. It's probably a safe generalization to assume that most photographers on Flickr have no idea what an API is. Since this is a community built around people who post pictures, not a community built around people who build 3rd party applications, it seems reasonable to put pressure on Flickr to act in the interests of it's primary community members.
I understand what Hide your photos from searches on 3rd party sites that use the API means, even if I don't fully understand the API. I have the power (as does every other Flickr user) to block off-site access. I don't necessarily understand all the ins and outs of the API, but Flickr has empowered me to protect my interests if I take action.
I still find it highly frustrating that no one took F2 to task for not providing a valid legal claim to the image that started this thread - that's important and everyone seems to blow it off as trivial. I've had copyrighted works infringed upon and if I hadn't been willing to provide my real name, real address, phone number and details that provided reasonable assurance that the copyrighted work was in fact mine, I'd have had no claim. That's part of what makes the system work - a real person or legal entity must stand behind the claim.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand: "is pure, unadulterated crap. It is incumbent on the person who uses the photos to ensure there is no breach of copyright, or any other restriction. If that is too hard source your photos from somewhere else. It is never MY responsibility to ensure that YOU do not break the law."
It is YOUR responsibility to provide reasonable evidence that your claim is valid, which was not done in this case. And you'd be hard pressed to find any sympathy from a court if you left your car unlocked with the keys in and came back to find it missing, which is essentially the same thing.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, jakeludington. Your mate knew the photos weren't his. That means he knew they were someone else's. That in itself puts an obligation on him.
But you seem to have segued nicely from me having a responsibility to fight the robbers from my door to what goes into making a valid claim.
Do try to run a consistent argument. Are you saying we have an obligation to protect ourselves against rampaging thieves, and that we are responsible if they break down our defences, or are you saying that someone who claims against you should reveal who they are?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Frogshit, from start to finish...
For future reference, Mr Wirtz and his supporters would be well-advised to peruse this thread: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/67860/
THAT is how an ethical site developer deals with this sort of matter...
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
He's a stand up guy
a standup response from him now would be to list his other 69 sites that have been pulling ARR images from flickr. we'd be only too happy to assist in checking the sites for further infringements. ;-)
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand: As someone who has found it necessary to make several valid claims when my own copyright has been violated, I'm saying:
a) Taking the necessary precautions to prevent copyright violation happening in the first place is prudent. If you do not take necessary precautions, expect to be violated.
b) When you make a claim, you must, in fact, be making that claim as the legal entity who claims to hold copyright. Failure to make a claim as the legal entity with said claim means you have not actually made a valid claim.
The API calls being made in this instance were not intended to violate anyone's copyright. The fact that copyrighted images showed up was not an intended result.
@Dr. Keats: I believe it was stated earlier in this thread that the issue has been dealt with, making Mr. Wirtz just as ethical as Darckr or whoever that other thread is directly referring to.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I take responsibility to make sure you aren't breaking the law, why wouldn't you do the same for me?
You think when Getty contacts me about a Copyright violation I am not taking some responsibility to make sure you aren't violating the law? Nintendo's Trademark requires that it's use is limited to promotional, journalistic,
Do you think the Police will spend much time looking for they guy who stole your car if you left it running in the parking lot?
I was unaware that from a licensing stand point that you could not change the license on a piece of content. (didn't come up when we were looking at DMCA and its requirements) But at no point would F2's image ended up on my site if he had always had the image flagged ARR.
I will investigate the displaying the license with the image. That would be easy to add to code, if I can simply say "these images presened with CC Attribution License and the User's Name... Might even save me the hassle of dealing with all of the stolen images that people report to me that they say are stolen from their site that are just uploaded to Photobucket. (PB seems to do this more than Flickr)
The Searcher's point would seem to imply that my sin is that I didn't display the license information. The flickr Search also fails in this regard. I will attempt to work out how to comply with this portion of CC.
Since everyone is in arms about copyright... Let me share a snippet of an e-mail I recieved from Nintendo about a month prior.
>>>>>>>>>
We represent Nintendo of America Inc. (”Nintendo”), the owner of the trademark(s) and/or copyrighted works listed above (the “Nintendo trademark(s)/works”). It has come to our client’s attention recently that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the above-referenced sexually explicit Web site. This use is unauthorized, and we are writing to demand that you immediately cease and desist this infringement of Nintendo’s intellectual property rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was because on a page that spoke about the existent of a celebrity sex tape I had also written a story about Super Smash Bros. No images of or links to images of the sex tape, Nintendo informed me that I needed to remove all images of the Nintendo, and Wii logo from all of the pages that contained links to the story of the existance of the sex tape.
At that time they also informed me that Modifying their Logo's was a violation of their trademark, and I referred them to flickr, as stated that the image was not hosted or created by me and that I would attempt to remove it from results but that I would need 7 days, and they said not to bother they would follow up with the creator.
As both a content agregator, and a Content creator, I spend a lot of time making sure that my employees don't plagurize, that the content we agreggate is in the clear. You don't know how easy it is to get a DMCA from FOX or Comedy central for a YouTube Clip.
I also spend a lot of time defending false copyright claims. Our celebrity gossip sites routinely get Cease and Decist notices from PR firms claiming that images which are licensed are not in order to kill a story.
If you think someone has stolen your image try sending a polite e-mail requesting it's removal. Include your Name, Address, Phone Number and if possible send it from a Domain that is the same as the company you represent. If you can't then the phone number should ring to that company.
When evaluating a copyright claim failure to do any of those is likely to get you ignored.
Filing a DMCA is not advisable unless your first attempts fail. In filing a DMCA violation you are swearing under penalty of law you own all associated copyrights and trademarks associated with the image. If it is found that you don't have a model release or own a trademark you will be covering the court costs of the person you filed the DMCA against.
F2 benefits from not being in the US making it harder to recoup those costs.
*The above text about legalities has not been evaluated by a lawyer and is based on the law as it was explained to me.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm surprised that Flickr havn't also pulled the plug on the web site owner's other site which is also using copyright protected images:
www.yentering.com/
That page is displaying three copyright protected images.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
"That page is displaying three copyright protected images."
Which is being addressed. I also pointed out the issue outside of this thread.
Interestingly enough for those keeping score on the copyright front, at least one of the pages with a so-called ARR photo on it has a very blatant copyright violation on the page, can anyone spot it?
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you very much Flickr for cutting the link to XYHD.TV a web site which was blatantly ignoring the copyright of Flickr users. XYHD.TV's web site owner made it very clear to me that he had consulted with his lawyers and they had assured him that he was not violating Flickr's terms and conditions. Sounds like bad advice to me!!
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
F-2 edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
|
Page caches for 8 hours, the code wasn't updated on that site immediately. Dumped the cache and the code works.
F2 if you aren't going to post your name you should stop posting mine. I has resisted posting yours because I respect privacy.
Though after you added my e-mail address to a spam bomb list I seriously considered not.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can assure you that I have not added your name to a spam bomb list, must be one of your other friends.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
drake_greene It is on your site. It is your responsibility. Pretty straightforward proposition. All your attempts to deflect responsibility to someone else are pusillanimous at best. So what if someone else has breached copyright? All that does is make you partners in crime. It does not absolve you.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher's point would seem to imply that my sin is that I didn't display the license information. The flickr Search also fails in this regard. I will attempt to work out how to comply with this portion of CC.
Let's make this absoltuely clear: Flickr provides all the tools you need to do this the right way. It is not difficult to do. The API makes it simple, and even writing your own tool it's nothing but a moment's extra work. You cannot fob this failure off on Flickr Search failing. It'd be more credible to blame gremlins.
If it is found that you don't have a model release or own a trademark you will be covering the court costs of the person you filed the DMCA against.
What bollocks.
Firstly, model releases have no bearing on the copyright of an image; they are required only for certain uses. If you're using an ARR image promotionally that doesn't have a model release, not only are you infringing the photographer's copyright, but likely the model's rights to their image and their right of publicity. The same goes for trademarks; it's the use of the image (i.e., what you do with it) that will get you in trouble with the trademark owner.
As far as I can see, you're either horrendously incompetent, or simply a liar and a scam-artist. Possibly both.
I believe it was stated earlier in this thread that the issue has been dealt with, making Mr. Wirtz just as ethical as Darckr or whoever that other thread is directly referring to.
Right. Vaguely ridiculous threats about recovering costs, meaningless mumbo-jumbo about Flickr's search failing, a complete ignorance of the relevant conditions. Yeah, he's a model fucking citizen.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm kind of confused. How can there be any issue of proper identification for a copyright violation, if:
1: you properly comply with the license, in which case you would know who the owner is, because you would have properly attributed him with the image.
2: I don't think I have a number 2. Basically, the API isn't a spigot to freebies land. You don't need a court or lawyer to tell you that you goofed, you have flickr shutting off your spigot to tell you that.
In other words, if you don't get it right, and get caught, you don't get to play.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm kind of confused. How can there be any issue of proper identification for a copyright violation
It is entirely specious argument.
Whilst a proper DMCA request would need F2's name etc, the DMCA goes to the hosting site (peer1) if the copyright violator refuses to take down the offending material. F2 does not need to supply his name and address to the violator when he requests that the violator to remove the material.
That is not to say that if if the violator does have reason to believe that he has a license to use the work from some other party they may dispute the ownership of the copyright. But in this case they did not have a license for F2's work or for any of the other ARR works they used on the site
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In other words, if you don't get it right, and get caught, you don't get to play.
Yup, d200.nikon-photo.net previously showing thousand of ARR images still being cached by google here 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:V77rTOFbYxoJ:d200.nikon-pho... has been taken down after a complaint filed.
All Flickr users should Google their images often and find out who is using them. If someone is inflicting the rights to your property come forward and fight back!!! That's the only way.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I love how these infringers try to make it YOUR fault that they don't conduct their business lawfully.
Hey, Drake -- have a licensing agreement (with backup model releases) for every photo you publish, just like EVERY print outfit does. Because that's how you comply with copyright law -- not by making people you've infringed PROVE they own the copyright. The onus is on YOU.
Posted 51 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
"here are some on Flickr who do allow images to be included with 3rd party API and yet their images are should still be displayed as a thumbnail according to Flickr's rules"
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads