|
Mine are still showing up there, so things aren't fully fixed...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I realise Staff have that little STAFF logo. Actually Dr. Keats, I remember you mentioning this in the Video Feedback thread, a day or so after all the fuss kicked off in there: that Striatic had been on the team testing video out and that he was practically staff. That was the reason I asked.
Anyway, I am not really fussed one way or the other. I just want Flickr to look after their users a little more and stop throwing their hands up and saying: "Well, sorry, copyright infringement is your problem and your job to follow up". Especially when it is possibly abuse of the release of their own code that is causing a lot of it.
I have made al my pics private for now, have batch added a huge watermark to all the pics on my PC I have on Flickr and am going through now and replacing them...... except I keep getting an error saying that the file was not replaced successfully, please try again.
Not a good day for Flickr's servers I think. Anyway, hope everyone had a nice Independence Day holiday.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hey, Everyone.
My name is Myk, I'm the founder and CEO of Myxer.
First of all, I want to apologize to everyone who was angered by the recent launch of our Flickr integration feature, and I want to thank everyone who took the time to send a note to our copyright alias (copyright@myxer.com). We do, in fact, read and act on every single email we receive.
Because of your emails, we have suspended Myxer's Flickr integration features until we can re-evaluate the situation. (This feature was live on Myxer from late Thursday, 3 July, to Saturday, 5 July).
It was never our intention to power mobile delivery of any Flickr content against the wishes of the person who posted it to Flickr, and I feel terrible that there were many who felt violated by this feature. We were honestly just really excited to add what we thought was a really cool feature for Flickr users -- the ability to send publicly-posted photos to mobile phones. And, while we may have understood the "letter of the law" with respect to using the Flickr API, we obviously failed to fully understand the intent that many in the Flickr community have when they host content with Flickr.
I've personally always been a really big fan of Flickr, for the simplicity of its user interface, the openness of its APIs, and for the creative environment it fosters. As we've grown Myxer over these past few years, I've often looked to Flickr as a source of inspiration. I sincerely hope that you all will come to understand that that Myxer does not want to do anything to inappropriately exploit, or otherwise take anything away from, the beautiful collective creation that is Flickr.
As we re-evaluate the implementation of our integration, I will be sure we post updates to the Myxer blog (blog.myxer.com), and engage the Flickr community through its own forums. I will also address the issue on my personal blog (mykwillis.wordpress.com). In the mean time, I would like to invite anyone who would be willing to share their thoughts and opinions to contact me directly.
Respectfully,
Myk
myk@myxer.com
(954) 294-2294 [mobile]
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Myk - it's perilously simple. "publicly-posted" does not mean "you can do what you like with this"...
The fact that you can see something on Flickr doesn't automatically mean you can use it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
> the ability to send publicly-posted photos to mobile phones
you cannot do that unless the photo license allows you to do that.
all my photos that are publicly posted on flickr have a licence indicating "Copyrighted, all rights reserved". this means only flickr has the right to display them. i know that individuals can download the images displayed on flickr, e.g. to use them as wallpaper, and that some bloggers also use those photos without asking permission (many bloggers do ask permission) but i don't give any right to any other commercial company to use my flickr images, unless they license the images from me, and this is generally not free.
> And, while we may have understood the "letter of the law" with respect to using the Flickr API
i don't think you do. the flickr API does not allow you to use photos that have the "copyrighted, all rights reserved" license on your commercial site.
you (myxer.com) can only use photos that have the appropriate CC license. the flickr API gives you access to all public photos, but you should look at the license attached to determine if the use you want to make of the photos is allowed, since your site is obviouly commercial, you need a CC license that allow free commercial use.
> we obviously failed to fully understand the intent that many in the Flickr community have when they host content with Flickr.
no, you just fail to look at the type of copyright license attached to each photo to determine if you have the right to use it. it's as simple as that.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
loupiote (Old Skool) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
There are apples publicly available in my local supermarket. Can I just go and grab and take them with me just like that?
Didn't think so.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Seems I'm bit late to this "party" -- I just wanted to file the same post here :
www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157606010275...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for spending some time, Myk, to answer here personally. Perhaps you could spend a little more to tell me if people actually downloaded any of my images from yours service. Because if they did, I would like paying please.
Loupiote and Dr Keats are right though and I would add the same pointsif they had not already made them: all rights reserved means just that. Your actions have cost me quite a few hours today in batch processing a watermark into all my images and I am now going through the very time-consuming process [especially as Flickr is currently having a problem with replacing photos] of replacing all my Flickr photos with the heavily watermarked versions.
The API is there to add value to the Flickr experience not to provide a free stock library for people. The web has a lot of power to enrich people's creativity and more widely promote their work in order to creat income for themselves. It is difficult enough these days to be a professional photographer and with all respect people doing what you have done do not make it any easier. Especially in the arena of establishing some perceived value for the images us photographers take a lot of time to create.
The web has rightly challenged a lot of concepts in the realm of ownership, dissemination and copyright of 'stuff' that people create. The fact remains, though, that photography is my living and the more people get the idea that they can just take what they see because it is online, the worse things will get and I am left just having to spend more money and time to protect myself to enjoy the benefits of the internet.
But, I dont see why I should stop using the internet to promote my work just because people either dont do their homework properly before 'implementing a cool feature' or who just dont give a shit that they are stealing from people.
And, Sohvimus; very good point, the like of which I made earlier in the D300 group that I moderate, when someone suggested that 'all publicity is good publicity'.
My reply? If Nikon gave a camera shop 100 Nikon DSLRs on sale or return and the camera shop had them all stolen, then said 'Hey, but its all good publicity for your great camera', would Nikon just cave in?
No.
If it didnt sound so idealistic, I would suggest that it would be great to live in a world where everyone was so honest that we didnt needd CCTV in-store, or those bleeping barriers to catch people taking things out of shops. But, at least when the store-detectives catch the thieves they get prosecuted. When someone steals my work online people just tell me 'Hey, well, that's the internet... if you dont want it stolen dont put it online'.
Bollocks I say. The onus is on people to stop thieving.......
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
Alfie | Japanorama edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
|
Dr. Keats, Old Skool, Alfie, everyone -
Thank you all for your comments. I can assure you that before re-enabling any Flickr integration from Myxer, we will be doubly sure that we understand all of the issues surrounding not just the technical details of the implementation, but also the uses intended by the owner of each photo.
Myk
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> the uses intended by the owner of each photo
you mean, the licence / copyright information attached to each photo.
this information is available as part of the technical API. all you need is understand it and use it as specified by flickr.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Myk,
Appreciate your turning that off at your website and popping in here to understand the issue.
I still have to say that this use of the Flickr API is one of the most egregious I've seen -- using Flickr photos against the copyright or license held on the photo by the owner by making those photos available for download, by transforming them by changing the dimensions or cropping the image, surrounding them with ads, and then copying them off to your servers does two things:
1. Violates the "letter of the law" in regard to copyright, which in the US can lead to a $100,000 claim by the owner per infringement by copying (literally) and publishing the images against the exclusive rights the owner has (in the case of an all rights reserved image) or against the terms of any CC licenses (like those that do not allow for commercial use)
2. Violates the "letter of the law" in regard to the API's Terms of Use, which clearly state that the API application must respect any copyright or license held on the images used.
How you could overlook these two things in your implementation actually is beyond me, especially when you have to agree to the API's ToU in order to get your commercial key.
I would hope that you get yourselves on the API's dev mailing list or check into the Flickr API group so that you can get assistance in configuring your application to only pull CC-commercial images.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Myk Willis
Here is what you agreed to in order to get your API key:
API TOS
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.
-----------------------------------
If you have competent software coders on your team, they can make your application fully compliant with all of the restrictions that someone can put on their account in Flickr. Like who can download, and only allowing your customers to download photos already licensed for commercial use.
It looks like your whole team missed some crucial aspects of writing compliant code.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@Myk Willis
As already stated, it is apreciated that you respond here in this not very satisfying issue.
Nevertheless you didn´t answer an important question / remark of Alfie in Japan:
"Perhaps you could spend a little more to tell me if people actually downloaded any of my images from yours service. Because if they did, I would like paying please."
I also would like to know how many of my 100(!) images I found on your site have been used!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I started this discussion, and I also appreciate that Myk Willis responded here AND suspended the Myxer/Flickr intergration feature.
Myk Willis said:
"This feature was live on Myxer from late Thursday, 3 July, to Saturday, 5 July."
I really, really, .....really don't think however many photos of ours (if any) were downloaded to people's phones amounts to a tiny pile of beans from 3 July - 5 July.
Really.
It should suffice to allay concerns if Flickr & we just keep an eye on Myxer in the future to ensure all's well.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry fotoguy, but I don´t agree to your argumentation!
It doesn´t matter if there have been downloaded only a few or a lot of images... it was and will stay a violation of copyright, you also can call it a theft!
Also, it is even more worse as it was done via a "commercial" webpage. Commercial in this case doesn´t mean for me if Myxer.com charged anything to the users, it means for me that Myxer .com is a commercial "company". If you set up a business you MUST know ALL the rules and laws that apply to your business, you ARE responsible for all you do in your business. Arguments like "we didn´t know", "maybe has been a mistake" etc. are nice statements, but absolutely obsolete.
I am well aware of some facts: This was not the first time that something like that happened... and it will be not the last time. It is "nice" that the "mistake" was corrected and the CEO appologized... but does that really solve the problem?
Let me mention my personal opinion: Good ideas, where the rules are followed by most of the people, get mostly corrupted by either criminal or dumb people... it is a shame.
And seeing these events you have not to wonder if communities like flickr over the time lose their sense... at least their level of quality.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
As long as they're willing to comply, I'm ok with the retraction of the service. It isn't uncommon for people to have absolutely no understanding of copyright or licenses, when it comes to the interwebs. It's one less enterprise and group of people who think the web is a big table of free cupcakes and brownies. So I'd call that a win.
Also, as mentioned above, if they made a system that complied with account authentification, it'd still be a handy utility for a person to be able to put their own photos onto a cell phone.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, they got it in terms of Flickr, anyhow, but judging from the content that remains on their site, I have to wonder if they ever contacted any IP attorney before launching their business.
I'm happy that they yanked Flickr content, however, and although polite and clueless (thinking that they were following the "letter of the law") they at least were not total fuckwits as others have been.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
they at least were not total fuckwits as others have been.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ha!
I almost linked that. Good on ye!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Myk Willis Use CC Commercial content only and there will be no problems. Assuming the photographer knows what that means.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand: Actually that won't work for them either, at least in current application. All CC licenses require the "CC license" notation to travel with the image, so the next person who wants to use it will know what license it travels under.
Not only were there no license notations on this site at all, but it would mean that even the images that travel to a cellphone, would need a CC notation to go with it. So far not the case.
Also, several CC licenses forbid any commercial use. Considering there's 3-4 different full page ads that you have to swim through to get this "free" service, those licenses are out, too. Even the "No-Derivs" licenses may be violated with use of the cropping feature and maybe even the cell phone size.
So that may be a pretty small pool for them to pluck from.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher I wonder why I put the word "commercial" after "CC"? Probably a typo.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I wonder why I wrote three paragraphs pointing out why that still won't work for them, unless they fix the other license-breaking elements.
must have been a really long string of typos.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@searcher
It is sufficient for them to outline or link to the appropriate license on their site. It doesn't have to travel with the image, unless the reuser also wants to redistribute it to others, then the re distributer will be responsible for passing on the license.
They could embed the license details in the EXIF.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Two of you have said it all really;
Searcher: "It isn't uncommon for people to have absolutely no understanding of copyright or licenses, when it comes to the interwebs. It's one less enterprise and group of people who think the web is a big table of free cupcakes and brownies. So I'd call that a win."
I agree. And it is worrying that people base an entire business around something that they would clearly have figured out was not possible just after reading Clause 2 of the API Terms.
FotoGuy: "I really, really, .....really don't think however many photos of ours (if any) were downloaded to people's phones amounts to a tiny pile of beans from 3 July - 5 July."
True, but although I am not in this argument for money it is a standard procedure of mine as a professional to at least ask for money if someone has been caught and then admitted to stealing my work. And, BTW, thanks a lot for starting this thread.
I will do everything I can to protect myself whilst at the same time not allowing other s to prevent me from utilising the immense power of the web to promote my work. The whole issue of copyright is a curious one in this day and age. But until someone comes along with another way - apart from money - of me being able to feed and clothe my family from the profits of my work as a photographer, then copyright and usage rights will continue to be important for me to protect.
I thank you all for your help and advice...... cheers.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To pick up on this -- if a company with the intention of making profits doesn't have any legal counseling, I don't know how they expect to stay in business for long. The copyright issues we discuss here are VERY BASIC. Nothing that needs a law school degree. So, if you don't have legal council and aren't aware of even the very basic legal issues -- better get a good legal council !! NOW !! With mistakes like this, you are the next best victim to an unscrupulous lawyer to sue the hell out of you for issues much smaller than this.
Even as a programmer (before starting photography), I have read enough about infringement to know that your actions are clear NO NO !! No need to read the entire DMCA. Just read A SINGLE license agreement of any software and you get the idea. You are basically doing what NAPSTER did to the music industry -- and by now everyone in this business should be aware of the dangers of imitating Napster .. !!
You tell me NO ONE in your company has had any objections to this blunt infringement ?? You really must be living on the dark side of the moon !!
flickr IMHO also is to blame as they DO NOT PROTECT OUR PHOTOS. Their API leaves the door open to such blunt infringements and thus I suggest flickr also cleans up their API by :
a) DO NOT allow API access to photo's medium or bigger (unless I grant access) This should include access from non-flickr sites and use e.g. referer to stop leeches !! I have photos with 90% going to "leeches" and flickr cannot / doesn't provide any hint about the referer / source of the leak.
b) BETTER scrutinize companies. By default, assume a company has commercial interest and only if they can prove their not for profit status (e.g. 503(c)(3) certificate). give them access to CC non-commercial use photos, MEDIUM and larger.
c) if a commercial third party wants access beyond small, I have to grant them access and I decide if ALL VISITORS or only FRIENDS and FAMILY and MYSELF can see the MEDIUM and bigger photos. And CLEARLY state if the company is a for-profit or not.
d) Do not allow commercial companies access medium or larger pictures with "ARR" or CC "non-commercial" license. Exception if I grant them permission (see c)
Personally, I think MEDIUM is the threshold where serious protection should start -- other may argue only thumbnails should be available for free. That's something to discuss.
Also, I'm sure flickr has the ability to add some protection -- e.g add a small, visible watermark to each off-site access (referrer) (e.g "Brought to you by flickr / USERNAME") or something like that.
Of course there always are ways to circumvent the suggested measures -- but it is a improvement. Also YAHOO / FLICKR should talk with all makers of BLOG-software as most tools seem to illegally copy photos onto their servers instead of using IMG-tag
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
While I'm a big fan of copyright protection, I simply want to point out, stargazer95050, that this site was using the medium sizes of our images and then resizing them to send to the phones.
I also don't see how they can restrict access to certain API calls based on license. All the API calls are here, wide open, for anyone to try their hand at (and getting a non-commercial API key takes less than 5 minutes):
www.flickr.com/services/api/
Maybe someone with more experience in the API than I have can speak to the feasibility of crippling the API, but I'm not an advocate of it. The API is simply a tool. How that tool is used is what matters.
Usually Flickr is much more responsive to Help Forum calls to have a key revoked than they have been this US holiday weekend. I've seen them shut a key off within an hour of it being reported on this Forum.
Frankly, I'd be satisfied with a better vetting procedure (company lays out the plan, Flickr approves the app, app has to be reviewed again by Flickr before it can go live) or the ability to white/blacklist individual API apps.
At any rate, there are a couple of threads about the API at Flickr Ideas; www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=309584%40N24&q=api
Notably the suggestion for a white/balck list but also for a master list so that we, the Flickr users, can review these apps ourselves.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
better vetting procedure
yeah. flickr, do you do any follow-up at all after passing out an API key?
we know how many API TOS violations have been sleuthed out by users--truck loads. but you're the ones with the approval list. all we've got is dumb luck, mostly. so please tell us that it's not just on us to call out these idiots.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
dbthayer: you have hit the nail ont he head sir. It is our work that is at risk. Flickr is the one handing out the keys. We are left with having to follow up all the copyright infringements ourselves, most of the time.
Heavily watermarking all my work is the future for me and I have made all my pics private until I can replace them with the ones I have now watermarked. Once people are back from the holidays, and have fixed the replace function, I can get on with that.
My own blog runs on a flash-style interface so is at least a little more protected and obviously isnt connected to the potential image vacuum cleaner that some people are using the API as.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@dbthayer: very good question.... I'd like to know the answer myself
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A commercial API "follow-up" by Flickr has been suggested in at least one of the earlier threads on API "abuse" - it's making more sense all the time...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We are left with having to follow up all the copyright infringements ourselves, most of the time.
Sorry, but that really is our responsibility, no one elses.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
First of all-
Since receiving my "Google Alert "yesterday that there was a wallpaper of me re: Free Tibet, I have been so mixed emotinally-
a recording artist/performer....
I switched to flickr precisely because I was unaware for the better part of a year that phtobucket was receiving literally over 100,000 hits to my (I believed to be private) account each month.
Furthermore,
No tags, even related names were posted-
And yes- I do/did model-act...
These are pics I took on my Imac!
REGARDING THE MYXR deal:
Anyway,
I was in shock!
They have 2 pages worth of my music photos available for download.
I feel totally violated.
The information with it was lifted straight from this site.
In addition, I actually DID register all photos under CC copyright, non comercial. non dervis (I believe that is the proper term...)
It means: The most protectin under CCommons, whichever I chsose
(I will check now....)
So-
As you see,
my "Babyninemusic" account is no longer in my power.
This is what has driven me over the edge,
I am so happy I am not alone, as I am still cping with music copyright which is very disturbing.
I relate- and I think all of you have intellectually legitimate argumaents;
However, the course of action I would like to see is a just one.
United We Stand-Divided we Fall....
If I hadn't checked that ONE of soooo many google alerts...
I may have never known.
It is a feeling of violation.
Now these images are viral.
Stargazer9050:
I would happily adpt your outline as a rough draft as a petition.
And as Myxr has hacked-
Another story entirely....
Stay Vigilant, True and remember that behind the API key clauses, and this TRON-like nightmare are peple that must be held accountable.
Sincerely,
Amanda Montanaro
"Babynine"
Please contact me.. this is a new account I signed in on as I am locked out of my own account!
Babyninemusic@gmail.com
or
better yet
www.myspace.com/aurabluebaby9
RAY ON!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Bold words (and really really confusing words) coming from someone who appears to have many photos on their ("locked out"??) photostream taken from other Flickr members (the tipoff being the titles are the flickr-generated filenames).
Education is needed all the way around.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yes, Amanda appropriated a bunch of photos of the digit "9" from other flickr members that she (probably) does not have rights on.
copying other's people photos on flickr is a big no-no, and if you have permission to do that from the copyright owner, you should at least give them credit and link to the source photo page.
she should respect copyrights of others before complaining about feeling violated.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This incident not only angered me :
www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2008/07/07/how-every-flickr-ph...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That piece is spot-on stargazer. This excerpt from it echoes exactly how I feel.....although I havent missed the fact that Flickr has a lot of responsibility here:
"What both parties [photographers and developers using the API] have missed to date is that Flickr is ultimately responsible to honor their agreement with individual photographers and to manage their API in such a fashion that the Privacy & Permissions settings specified by Flickr photographers are honored.
I am personally disappointed that Heather Champ did not pursue looking into this in a more timely fashion. I have gone above and beyond in giving her an opportunity to address my concerns privately through several email correspondences and a personal conversation. Seven months is a lifetime in this day and age of blogging on the Internet."
Hear, hear......
Heather??????
I think, frankly, the only thing to do - as I have watched for two years as Flickr wrestled with and ignored this issue of helping us protect our copyright - is leave Flickr.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
hmm so no one has heard of flickr leech????
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes. Anyway, I have deleted all of my pics apart from a goodbye message for the friends I have made here over the past two years and I am off, to manage my own blog and website and develop them further. At least I can control them.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this thread started after the beginning of the independence-day week-end. i am sure flickr staff will look into that when they return to work on monday.
indeed, this myxer incident is very reminiscent from previous cases such as those mentionned here:
www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2008/07/07/how-every-flickr-ph...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Alfie in Japan I respect your decision to move off of Flickr, and it's valuable that you're getting the word out about issues with the API via your blog.
However, there is one point in your blog post that needs to be corrected: you claim that myxer was selling Flickr photos. At no time were the photos ever sold on that site - all of the ones I saw were offered up for free.
It's a small point, but credibility is important.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for that Zyrcster..... I made a point earlier, in the thread here I think, that somewhere they were probably making - as these folk do - some money on the call charges. That was probably what I meant but will change any reference I made to 'being sold' into one that is clearer.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No there was no premium rate call charges, just the rate that your carrier charges.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Right, OK. Well, I have edited out all references to it being a paid-for service. The fact still remains that people usually offer something for free to later get something out of people in return for money. There is, after all, usually no such thing as a free lunch.
So, the inaccuracies have been corrected and I apoligise for getting that wrong. As you say Zyrcster, credibility is important and - when one is taking a stand - it is everything. So, thank you guys.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
Alfie | Japanorama edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Thanks Alfie. It's great to see you publicising this, and I'm sorry to see you and your work go.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Seconded...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks to you too. After having just contracted myself to a new agency here in Tokyo, I really cant afford to have my work being taken off me like this. I have had a great two years on Flickr, met some great people and seen some amazing work which has spurred my own on ten-fold. But I cant stand around and watch unscrupulous people misbehaving with Flickr's API steal things from me anymore.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Where is Staff now were about 150 comments in on this thread?
And Stargazer's post was excellent!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Guess there's a huge backlog after the holiday, but still...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
funfotoguy edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
There is enough outrage here so I don't need to add my own.
About a decade ago an on line group I was a member of went through not only theft of images but also theft of intellectual properties. Long story.
Since then I have figured anything put on the web is subject to being stolen.
They search by tags? Then I use no more tags.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"I am personally disappointed that Heather Champ did not pursue looking into this in a more timely fashion"
as others have mentioned, all weekend long: it was a long holiday weekend.
This whole thing was discovered, pitchfork-torched, and resolved, all before the start of business Monday morning. Everything folks have said in here about accountability, API watchdogging, API black/white lists, etc, is still very valid.
But on the scale of egregiousness and frustration, this one's pretty low. Mostly because the site owner came clean and came here to explain himself in a pretty non-arrogant manner, and quickly removed the short-lived service from the site (by the way the $$ earned was from ad-revenue. There were three or four full-page ads you had to sit through before the wallpaper would download. It was not a "just for fun" utility.)
I'm not sure what staff intervention/comment would do at this point. Heather popping in to say "hey yeah, wow, that wasn't right. Good job kids!" isn't really going to do much for me.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 The Searcher
The blog linked above had an email from Heather dated Jan 9, 2008, in which she said she'd get with the team about this.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Considering it took over a year to change the words "this image is public", is there any indication she hasn't, and this is just the usual glacial change-pace?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher "usual glacial change-pace"
Don't worry, global warming will (dis)solve that problem.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Well, I took the appropriate route and got this response from Myxer:
"Dear Mr. Miller,
I am writing in response to your July 5th letter regarding the
unauthorized use of your images. Thank you for your notice.
Upon receipt of your notice, we have expeditiously removed access to the
referenced material.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions."
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, I just received one of those in my inbox as well.
I find it *fascinating* that they have a copyright officer at this company, yet they built this application with zero regard to copyright.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's just letterhead. The "Copyright Office" probably doubles as the printer table and coffee supply cabinet.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
LOL. Hey, I've been there. Well, not the stupid part, but the everything part.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i wish flickr staff had acknowledged this thread.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That would have been nice, Loupiote. I think went the online generation went online, manners and respect went largely offline.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
as did patience.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Flickr doesn't want to talk about this.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher
Considering it took over a year to change the words "this image is public"...
as did patience.
good one. ;-)
if there's one thing that dealing with the flickreenos gives us on a daily basis, it's the chance to be patient.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, I guess I just don't see the point, of them chiming in. Some folk might need a pat on the head and a cooing "it's ok, it'll be ok," but I do not. This situation resolved itself before they got to work today. If it did not, I'm all for kicking it up the complaint ladder and siccing staff on their API-abusing butts. It would be a something they could do, real and immediate.
but now that the site voluntarily complied and admitted fault, what's left? For staff to come in and say once again that they're looking at some distant "fix" to this inevitably human problem?
It's a rerun, I've got it Tivo'd. I'd rather roll the 20-sided die and call up the Flickr-Pokemon only when they're really needed.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, Searcher, but...... the topic raised here might be badged up "Myxer" but it is raising a wider issue which staff here probably should be responding to. So, maybe a more general thread might be worth starting, that could address these wider issues people are discussing here. The maybe we'll get some response from Flickr about what they think about all of this. Cos I think that's what people are interested to hear from the Staff.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Meanwhile, along similar lines, is anyone familiar with FlickrCombat.com?
It's a site that pulls in photos, then displays two photos from two different Flickr members and asks the viewer of FlickrCombat to rate them.
I've searched the Help Forum before for more info about FlickrCombat, but came up empty.
I mean the photos of mine that they pulled into their site, without any permission from me whatsoever.
I see this in their FAQ, FOR QUESTION #10:
10. A picture that belongs to me appears on flickrcombat website. I don't like that !
Please use the "Report this" button under each photo, and we'll take care to remove it.
Woo-Hoo! I can add another task to my plate to protect my photography....make sure I pop in there and search for my own photos, then submit a request for removal for EACH photo, as I am doing now.
Sigh.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Alfie: that's still my point. It isn't "raising a wider issue" at all. It's yet another in a long string of the same issue, just repeated. Just because you just got here doesn't mean this is something new. And as I said rather eloquently in the other thread you just tried to drag into your API haters club, technology isn't your boogyman; people who use the technology are. And even they aren't, almost all of the time. They just don't know any better.
Which yes, is a travesty. That people jump on the internets with no idea how they work. But sadly, they keep doing that.
Stop people from hoovering the web, and you'll stop them for a day. Teach them why hoovering the web is bad, and you, well you know how it goes. There's a bunch of fish at the end.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Staff should conduct periodic reviews of the way people are using the API.
From previous experience, if they joined this thread it would only open them to the same old abuse from the same old nutters. Unfortunately those nutters seem to have made staff less open to joining threads like this. Why should they step up just to be abused?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I dont have an API haters club. People are the issue, I totally agree. If a CEO of a company cant read two clauses down in a document and then bases his business on a plan to reproduce pictures against the terms of an that document, then that is a problem with him not the technology. Yes.
Anyway, my reality is one of not using this place for my work anymore so I will just shutup and get on with it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
indeed, www.flickrcombat.com is also displaying photos that are "(c) All Rights Reserved.
this is not acceptable.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Alfie: That's unfortunate, but like the girl in that other thread, Flickr isn't meant for "work" anyway. Stock sites like Corbis put big ugly watermarks on their collections, since that's their business model. But Flickr is about viewing, not selling. So ugly watermarks go against the whole "sharing" thing, thus people who resort to that to protect work product, usually suffer the sharing "death" because no one here wants to look at vandalized images. Compromise on the interwebs.
My experience from this weekend, brings me to a compromise of my own. I'm going to start adding a small white bar at the bottom of the image, and the text "Copyright 2008 Derek Chatwood All Rights Reserved". So on Flickr or any white background it'll just look like small text underneath.
But most of the time, images are taken with no knowledge of their origin, and once that credit is lost, it's just lost. So now I'm going to have to try grafting that onto the image, even tho it looks ugly enough to me, even just a 6 point font in the corner. So even if I can't stop the randomness of the interwebs, at least I can start to send my name along for the ride.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher:
Well, I guess I just don't see the point, of them chiming in.
that's nice, but others might. hope you can accept that possibility. ;-)
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I said so. the pat on the head and cooing bit. whatever gets you through the week.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
and if it gets you through the week to offer gratuitous advice on every discussion point, go for it! lol.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i've been putting watermarks on my photos for a long time.
but i can't believe some websites take the time to crop them off, sometimes adding their own copyright instead. i have seen that several times on my photos.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know, it's a pain. But 99% of the crap I dealt with this week, was just people not trying to take anything, just not knowing any better. So if the next fun down the line is people cropping the things off, I'll have to do the next thing.
whatever that is.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What would be good is if the EXIF data was retained into at least the small, medium, and large versions of the photos. 99% of the reuse that occurs, or is brought to attention, is when someone is using the image, or making it available on the web. Websites don't use the 3000x2000 size image, but the smaller sizes. Lets have our copyright and contact data preserved in the web economic sizes.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
That is an awesome idea, Walwyn. I am all for that.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mind you, if they're serious, a thief could pretty easily strip the EXIF data out anyway.
But most would probably be too stupid to even realise it's there, just as they don't expect to be caught flouting the API TOS...
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think that most are intentionally thieves, they just know no better, or are induced into copying by their peers. Stripping the EXIF data can result in major legal penalties, and most don't do that, particularly the photo bloggers, they just download and rehost.
The advantage of having the data in the EXIF is that if anyone subsequently wants to find the photog there is at least some likelihood of it being retained.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Forgive me if this has been mentioned but I have not read all the posts Has anyone mentioned COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION. I am only familiar with the U.S. copyright process. If your images are registered and infringed you can go after BIG money damages ,especially if you registered the images before the infringement. Not only can you receive a large money settlement per EACH infringed image but the infringer pays all your court costs! If more people registered their images thefts would go way down. Turn the tables around. Register then upload and hope someone does steal your image!
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
How does one "register" a photo?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
kardonme "If more people registered their images thefts would go way down."
In order to collect that "big money" the site will have to do more than post your image. First you have to send them a NOI and then they have to not take down your image. If they comply with the takedown notice, you won't have a court case.
Even if you win, the person has to have enough money to pay you. You won't get anything from some college kid with no assets. Nor will you collect anything if the person is in another country. How would you collect from someone in, say, Romania?
Perhaps you could test your theory by filing a case against any one of the many infringers who are brought to light here in the Help Forum.
Let us know when you hit the jackpot.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
|
MadeIn1953
You send a copy of the photo, the filled out copyright registration form, and a check to the US copyright office.
Or you register the images online through the e-copyright link on their home page.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
From what I understand, the photos stolen were put up for sale on the Myxer site. Even if they were offered for free, they do not belong to Myxer.
I would like to see Myk Willis thrown off Flickr and blocked from this site.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You understand wrong. They were not for sale.
You're getting your information second hand from an inflammatory headline on a blog.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
copyright registration is a great idea, however it is expensive and you can do it after the fact (if you see someone using image X, you can then go register it after the infringement).
However, in this case, where the company pulled the images after receiving the complaint, it's doubtful that a court will award you any claims.
One registers a photo in the US at the copyright office -- Google it.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
zyrcster edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Inflammatory content in the blog, too. That blog article has the facts wrong. And Myk Willis has responded here, quite reasonably: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/76282/page2/#reply478481
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, I mentioned all this about that blog earlier, now the blog is cruising around the Flickrverse doing more harm than good because of the inaccuracies in it.
Nice job, Alfie.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Myk Willis is no more a villain than most other clueless API developers.
He responded quickly. He immediately stopped accessing Flickr photos and he didn't give us a line of garbage about how it was OK to have done it in the first place.
There are people who have done worse and only got their key expired.
If Flickr staff HAD responded this weekend, we would have probably seen the same result:
An email from staff to the developer
The site developer putting the software on hold while they came into compliance
A future return of the application for Flickr users that was fully compliant with the TOS.
Flickr staff doesn't seem to expire keys except in the case of blatant disregard of their emails.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm going to guess that what people are waiting for, in terms of a staff response. is a reply to this comment about making changes to crippling the API.
Which I hope doesn't happen.
Although, again, it would be nice to see a better vetting procedure.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 ColleenM
Colleen, now I'm not suggesting that Myk is a villain but if he is a member on the flickr site then he surely knows that each member has the ability to copyright in various ways each posted image. Why do that? Well, I for one don't want my images being altered or used in ways that go against my grain. Happy to talk with people if they want to buy my images then at least I have the knowledge of how they're to be used, a fee can be sought and everyone's happy; or I can decline.
Here though no one had the opportunity to discuss this with the artists. If I in future want to create a website or use some images for marketing promotion are you saying it's OK for me to directly take any of your images?
This event makes me nervous, where else is it/has it happened and as yet the flickr community is unaware.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ha some people have been here years and don't know squat about copyright, or the API, or what it does, or what they have to do to be in compliance. Very few indeed read the fucking manual.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hoddo1812 You haven't seen the other asshats we have had to deal with in regards to morally bankrupt Flickr uses. In contrast, Myk was polite (if clueless) and took the application down.
Can we please reserve pitchforks for the real morons?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Oh hell!
Given these continuing issues what is the compelling reason for continuing to post images on flickr and not move to another hosting site?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 hoddo1812
I'd say we see at least 4 or 5 of these every week. Which means 4 or 5 that are posted in the Help Forum. I would guess that less than 1% of the offending sites are ever posted here.
Which means that every week, about 400 of these apps are out there using your images without your knowledge.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If protecting your images is the single most important aspect of having them on the web, then you need to move to a site where no one has access to any of your images except by your explicit permission.
If someone can see your images, they can download them for their own use. So you'll need a site where only trusted friends can see them.
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not sure that moving to another photo sharing site is the answer. Most of them have an API - it's sort of the Web 2.0 thing to do. Those that don't have an API also happen to suck (I've tried a few of them out). But you know, your mileage with other sites may vary.
wherever do you get that number from?
Posted 17 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
