|
One of mine is there as well. The photo actually links back to my photostream. I also thought I had 3rd party API searches turn off as well. If Flickr can't secure MY property, then I will be forced to terminate my account.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Oh great. Mine are there, too.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Pretty screwy. I type my username into the search box and it picks up a random selection of my Australian photos.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just checked and for some reason, my 3rd party API searches were enabled. I don't remember changing this. I DO remember turning it off!
It appears that the shots are links back to Flickr., and you have to drag your photo to the area and submit it in order to win a camera???? What's the deal?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
If you search in the first search box, you will get thumbs that link back to Flickr.
If you go down to the middle of the page, and use the search for images in the competition, you will be shown thumbnails of your images that do not link back to Flickr, and are stored on their servers.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 That means that someone ran a search using their search engine, and decided to enter your photos into that contest under their name. The images you see on the search results page are hosted at that site and do not link back to Flickr.
This is totally screwed up and Flickr should block them at once.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
zyrcster edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
I double checked my account settings and my 3rd party API search is definitely not enabled. I'm furious.
All of my photos are marked "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and one of my photos listed on this Iconic Britian website is even marked so only friends and family can see it.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You would have to have your images be hidden from All Flickr Searches, to prevent more of this sort of use. Sites don't need to use the API to piggyback off of Flickr's public search results.
But that gets into how much you want to trade for your functionality on Flickr, for what will never be absolute control over external uses.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster Then whoever did it has very dubious taste. But if that is what happened why does a search of "iansand" pick them up?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "Flickr should block them at once"
My images are now stored on their site, since they've been entered in the competition.
This is a Microsoft/Nikon competition. Using Microsoft Live Search to find images.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
 Did you go to the site? It tells you to go search for photos to post to the contest. So, you can now enter our photos under your name, somehow.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Before anyone can "enter" an image, they have to click the "agree to terms and conditions" box. Within those terms it says not to search for or pick an image that belongs to someone else. They'll remove any image if asked to that violates that.
So that's their bit of teflon, there.
Looks easy to have a bit of fun with some "Fuck Britain" entries, though.
and by the way, it's ludicrous that they themselves even take their own rules seriously, if the sole function for the "contest" they provide, is to perform a web search on the page.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
The photos that are returned in the search must have been indexed and downloaded a long time ago, because a search for "curiouskiwi" shows at least one photo that I made private/friends/family over a year ago:
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It returns quite recent images of mine, Brenda. Some of them marked "moderate", in fact.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
weird.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda Anderson Someone likes purple swamphens. One of mine shows up as well.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"They'll remove any image if asked to that violates that."
You have to send a standard NOI, they have to honor that. They asked for a complete, standard NOI form when I tried to get my stuff off this afternoon.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Doesn't that just infuriate you??? I'm so mad that one of my private/friends/family only photos is also posted!!!
I hope Flickr staff will give us some insight.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Just found 4 of mine on there. None of them link back. So what's the next step?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
This thread is a pretty good documentation of exactly what to do and who to send emails to.
In addition to formal takedown notices, today's effort has gotten Nikon to withdraw one of its judges from the competition.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
The Searcher wrote It returns quite recent images of mine, Brenda. Yes, well that second one there on my screenshot is from last month... but the one of my son yawning is from 2005.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Send your cease and desist letters/NOI to:
jkweston@microsoft.com
msncompetitions@thin-martian.com
simon.coleman@nikon.co.uk
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Problem is, how would they honor that (an NOI) since they're performing a search, albiet possibly outdated. You'd have to file on every possible image that you discover from every possible search term.
I'd prefer someone with some clout (like Flickr staff) maybe give them a bit of a talking to, and see if they can just excise all Flickr results from their searches. Or maybe realize the whole thing is a silly can't-not-infringe exercise and kill the whole thing.
[Yeah, what a shock that Nikon may not want to participate in a photo contest that's about rewarding someone who stole the entry. Be nice if they'd pull the whole sponsorship plug, next.]
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
ColleenM wrote My images are now stored on their site, since they've been entered in the competition. Actually, it appears that all the images are stored on their site... not just the ones entered into the competition.
It is highly unlikely (near on impossible) that any of my photos that are shown in the search have been entered into the competition... as none of them have anything to do with Britain!
And it's just very weird the selection of images that they return on a search for "curiouskiwi"... I mean, why not my interesting photos? My buddy icon??
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
 Really? How did you find that out? Is that related to the photos issue? Thanks for the link.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There are two different searches you can perform on the page
www.iconicbritain.com
One of them is a Microsoft Live search, and returns images linked back to Flickr (although there are some very strange links there). The image shows as being stored on Flickr.
The other one returns images entered in the competition. I have Oklahoma landscape images showing up in that one, and they are stored on that site.
Edit: there were 4 judges when we started this effort this morning.
Read the thread for a blow-by-blow account of what's been going on all day.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 wdslentz
This is the company handling the competition
msncompetitions@thin-martian.com
This is the Microsoft IP attorney, whose address has been turned off.
jkweston@microsoft.com
"the jkweston@microsoft.com address is now bouncing mail,"
These are the remaining three judges. They don't need a NOI, since they have no control over the website.
simon.coleman@nikon.co.uk (Nikon judge who has already withdrawn)
Brian Blessed - email@aimagents.com
Joanna Lumley - dha@davidhigham.co.uk
Mike Selby - feedback@rexfeatures.com
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
ColleenM wrote The other one returns images entered in the competition. I don't think so, unless you are meaning a different search than I think.
The top search on the page is a normal Windows Live search.
The second search, in the section entitled, "Think you can do better?" lets you search for images to enter into the competition. Those thumbnails are not linked back to Flickr but are stored on their site. Those are the images in my screenshot posted above.
The only way I see to search for competition entries is to "vote now" ... but even that then brings up yet another live search.
It's all very confusing.
All I know is that those images in my screenshot are hosted on their site... and one of them is private/friends/family here on Flickr, so it could not have been 'entered' into any competition because it shouldn't be found in any live search!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, that second search is stuff they're hosting (tho i suppose that address could be a fake/redirect, it doesn't actually end with a graphic filename) but you then choose from those to enter something in the contest.
Colleen, if you go through the steps to enter one, you'll see how it works. Oddly enough, nowhere did it ask for me to actually enter my name or anything. Wonder how I'll know the sexy schoolgirl photo I chose won and I get the camera?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, these are cached photos from Microsoft's Live Search engine?
What made them think that it was ever OK to set up this contest this way?
And out of 2000 or so "viewable by all" images that I have, how did 9 of them (1 duplicated, because it was picked up from my stream and from a group), 9 random ones, end up in their cache, but not the other ~2000?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher wrote Wonder how I'll know the sexy schoolgirl photo I chose won and I get the camera? I think you'd already know. When you vote it says, "sorry you didn't win the camera this time" (or something like that).
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What? so it's not even a contest? It's just a random "click here" thing?
why did they need judges for that?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Brenda, I get what you are talking about. The first link though, strangely, the live search, didn't return anything for me. It was only the second search box that showed my 4 that didn't link back. Kinda weird, and confusing, yes!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I would be very honored if they chose my pictures from Tennessee USA to represent Britain. Hail Britannia! :D
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher No, it's that if you win, you would get a notification that you won a camera, instead of a notice that you did not win a camera.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher wrote What? so it's not even a contest? The camera prizes are "lucky dips" from what I can see. "We're giving away an SLR to a lucky submitter" and "100s of Instant Win cameras if you vote"
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But how do you win? If you click the "vote now" button? It gets weirder. Try it, it's fun. Hit "Vote Now" and try the same search. or is that what people did earlier and got it to link to Flickr?
It lets you do the same search, displays the same results, and NOW it opens up a window to the site they got it from. In a dizzying window-within-window-within-WINDOW interface (three scrollbars, neat!)
So it turns out they're taking mine from my PopRelics site, not Flickr. Which explains the weird choices I guess. But I still have no clue what's going on on this site.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
Yep, enter someone else's photo, and win a new Nikon SLR.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
According to the "rules" that I read, the idea is that you are not voting on a particular image... but on the concept. So, lets say you think that meat pies are iconic of Britain. So you search for 'meat pies', pick one you like, and enter it.
Now someone comes along to vote, and they get your 'meat pies' photo to vote on. The screen shows a whole lot of other meat pies... so you are voting on the "idea" that meat pies is iconic...
I guess...
hmmm...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher wrote It lets you do the same search, displays the same results, and NOW it opens up a window to the site they got it from. Aha!
Okay, so now I see that my friends/family photo was taken off a website that I had posted it to 2 years ago, when it was still a public photo on Flickr. Whew! Well, that solves that dilemma, I guess.
The whole thing, though, just reeks of trying to make money off other people's photos with minimal effort.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The whole thing, though, just reeks of trying to make money off other people's photos with minimal effort.
Yea, and not much Flickr can do about it now, since the photos were scraped who know how long ago (OK, at least a month ago, judging from one of mine)....
but I wouldn't mind Flickr darkening the light to MSFT's LiveSearch to punish them for this.
Of course, that'll never happen.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Bad news apparently due to the terms of the "Competition" you have to live in the UK so I was clicking away for nothing
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why does when they were scraped affect whether Flickr would do anything about it? curious, b/c I don't always totally understand all this.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 :) I'm being half sarcastic and half pissed.
When they were scraped is irrelevant. That they were scraped is. Search engines get a pass of sorts for using thumbnails as Fair Use. But to them turn around and use those thumbnails in this manner, for this contest, is an egregious infringement.
All I meant, bitterly, is that Flickr should deny access to our photos to Microsoft as "punishment" -- but that isn't realistic or feasible. There's nothing Flickr can do about this situation.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
carieellen
Flickr cannot do anything about images that are hosted on another site.
What they can impact is the actual process of showing images hosted on Flickr somewhere else on the web.
There is a big difference whether the image files are stored only on Flickr, and displayed somewhere else and whether the image files have been copied from Flickr and are now stored somewhere else too.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@carieellen~ If they copied the images and moved them to their server, then the damage is done and closing the door now, wouldn't help those of us with images on there. If they were using the proper API methods /key that Flickr allows it would be easier to shut this practice down as it would be images that are being accessed now. Hope that makes sense. It's past my bedtime.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
If Microsoft copied the images to their own servers, and then allowed those images to be distributed, they violated the Flickr Terms of Use and copyright law. This is image theft, pure and simple.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Gotcha!! understood. :)
So basically, the difference is between "displayed" and "stored" when it comes to the problem usage? (based on the combo answers) So, if they copy them, Flickr just leaves it up to us to deal with it, but doesn't themselves cry foul? Just wondering, I read all these threads all the time and find it terribly confusing. I'm not always clear on when I should be outraged or not... ;) I sort of generally look to see what you all think... ;)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I have 9 on there for certain, all with ARR attribution and 3rd party searches blocked, none have ANYTHING to do with Britain. The most recent one that they took was made on July 4, 2008 and posted to my flickr account on July 5, 2008
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
carieellen So, if they copy them, Flickr just leaves it up to us to deal with it, but doesn't themselves cry foul?
If the images are stored on some server other than Flickr, there is nothing Flickr/Yahoo can do about it. It's our copyright, we have to be the ones to file Notices of Infringement. That's a legal matter, and Flickr has no legal authority to act on our behalf.
If the images were being fed to the site via the API or RSS feeds, then Flickr can act in terms of their rules. If they feel that the website is violating the spirit of the ToS, then they can cut the feed or revoke the key. That's a matter of Flickr's rules, not the law, and Flickr can act because they are acting on their own behalf.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hopefully someone from Flickr will come and give us better answers but from what I understand... Under the current Terms Of Service, images that are made accessible outside of Flickr must link back to the Flickr page. It's probably important to mention that folks are reporting other images of theirs (not hosted by Flickr) are also on that site. None of my own images link back to Flickr but I have read elsewhere that some are. The images (even private ones) are shown which shouldn't happen.
I know what you mean about not knowing when to be outraged. I usually just let most things blow over when it comes to this sort of thing. If the images link back to me or proper credit is given I don't get too bothered. In this case neither thing happened and it wasn't a small organization who just didn't know better. They by-passed Flickr's TOS, Flickr's privacy settings and our individual copyrights.
[edited for clarity or something close to it]
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Shari DeAngelo edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
no, no. you all explained it well. Thanks. ;)
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It doesn't have anything to do with Flickr's TOS, since the images are hosted at Microsoft, there is no requirement that they link back to Flickr.
It's tough to make a straight copyright infringement claim for MS creating & hosting the thumbnails, since there was a lawsuit against Google on similar grounds, and Google won as the judge found showing thumbnails was fair use.
The images are not copied anywhere as part of the competition, that's just a visual representation of the contest.
So it comes down to whether MS can use these thumbnails to help promote their (commercial) competition. Whether they link back or not may be important, but I don't think there's any definitive case law. I.e., is it OK to host thumbnails in a search engine if & only if they link back to the site where they were originally found? Or is it OK in general to host thumbnails as part of an image search engine?
Profiting is a whole 'nother can of beans, but plenty of search engines, image or otherwise, have ads displayed right alongside copyrighted text, images and video.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hello: There is no Flickr API involved in this contest. If you look through various results within that contest, you'll see it mirrors that which you can already find on Microsoft's Live Search. Microsoft Live Search cannot search private content on Flickr. As Brenda noted earlier, some content was picked up some time ago before a privacy change was made. If they display an image in a result, it's something that was public at one time and changed to private. They likely have not re-crawled the same content.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
When I searched for "aheram" it turned up results that were mostly my work, but also other ones related to me (like a thumbnail from a Vimeo video that is about me, but I did not make) and definitely not me (but still a legitimate "aheram" result).
It seems to be independent of the Flickr API and not at all Flickr-related. Unless you consider every single instance where your photographs show up to be Flickr-related. :)
And this is exactly what I warned about in the previous thread about Google Search. Guess what? There are other search engines with web crawlers out there that might ignore your Flickr-specific settings. Different technology, different ways of crawling, different results.
Flickr needs to stop offering these futile and useless copyright semi-protections that lulls people into thinking they are actually effective.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
Erm, thanks Kevin. :) Did not see your post there.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 jakerome
Actually, Perfect 10 vs Google gave us some case law: to be a search engine, it has to link back to the original page, and it can't be advertising driven.
If you check the results pages from a google image search, you will see that there are no ads on the page, and there is a link back to the original site.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good to know about the private images, Kevin. Thanks. The difference between Live Search and this site (at least in my case) is linking back to Flickr. Live Search does. Iconicbritain does not. Is there anything we can do to prevent this type thing in the future?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Shari: Do not post anything publicly viewable online.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Did the judge rule that it HAS to be link back and CAN'T have ads? Or did the judge just note that it DOES link back and DOESN'T have ads?
I'll also note that text is also copyrighted, and nearly all of Google's regular search results include copyrighted text with ads alongside them, and oftentimes lets you view the entire page right on Google's website.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The good news is that we have proven how crap Live Search is.
Jakerome: It was the latter. It helped Google's case, though, but it was not a "non-commercial/linkback" precedent that ColleenM paints it to be.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
jakerome It is hard to imagine an effective, genuine search engine that does not link back.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Did you know that Ask.com shows ads when conducting image searches? Here's one example: www.ask.com/pictures?q=asbestos&search=search&qsr...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So does Altavista (aren't they a Yahoo! company?).
www.altavista.com/image/results?itag=ody&q=asbestos&a...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 So what does that mean ? Sounds like, thanks for paying for the pro accounts, we got your cash and your images which we use on our search engines .. Now your on your own.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
RCM273LDN edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
And picsearch, www.picsearch.com/search.cgi?q=asbestos&cols=4&th...
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "Flickr needs to stop offering these futile and useless copyright semi-protections that lulls people into thinking they are actually effective." .. Exactly
What technology is flickr going to use to block this sort of action in the future ?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
RCM273LDN edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
You can set up Flickr so that search engines won't index your photos.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think one of these settings does the trick: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/optout/?from=privacy
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
RCM273LDN
Flickr isn't using our images on any search engine. Microsoft is using its search engine to find our images. IconicBritain is taking those images and hosting copies on their own website. The site is a joint website that demonstrates Live Search by using it to find images to enter into the contest. Copies of the images are then hosted at the IconicBritain servers.
Flickr has no control over Microsoft, Live Search, or IconicBritain. What action do you see them taking?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay, I will play Devil's Advocate here.
The thumbnails, the Fair Use thumbnails, are no longer their previous owner's copyrighted work. Once it became part of Live Search's image search, a transformative and protected fair use, it is now Live Search's intellectual property. It is hosted on their servers as part of their image search engine.
So there is actually no infringement that takes place. You can say that the contest is merely a derivative of Live Search's own intellectual property (its search engine and its results).
What Live Search is allowing is people to pick Live Search's search results and nominate them for the contest. It just so happens that those results come in form of a heavily degraded thumbnail.
And yes, that is how copyright law work. Someone creating a derivative (that meets the Fair Use and transformative standards) owns the intellectual property to that new work.
For example, Aqua can sue Mattel for copyright infringement if Mattel ever uses "Barbie Girl" without Aqua's permission.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
In this case it doesnt matter .. iconic britain have taken any image, wether of not you have those options checked in your account details. The fact that it has happened now or 3 months ago is irrelevant.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sure. And Flickr is in no position to remove those results from Microsoft's image catalog. That's an issue between you & Microsoft. You can, however, prevent any of your future images from being indexed by any search engine. Those options have been available from Flickr for a long time, at least several years. I don't know what else you expect Flickr to do.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So, Jayel, you're saying that if I create a search engine to search flickr photos, and save all the thumbnails that people get as results (pulling them from the Flickr API, for example) on to my own server, that I then own the copyright of those thumbnail images? So essentially, if I want to sell those thumbnails for use, say, as cellphone wallpaper, I would be well within my rights?
Somehow I don't think so!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'll play Devil's Prosecution then. What the Brit site did is very much not "fair use", as they haven't done anything sufficiently "transformative" or for any of the various things that "fair use" is designed for, such as freedom of speech, expression, education, satire, commentary, etc.
LiveSearch can't claim intellectual property rights on property it didn't create/copy/use properly itself. If it is protected as a search engine, the further use of the images after that fact are actually new copies for a new use, a commercial contest, and not an extension of the initial use. Google can't take the images it grabs/makes for its search engine, and publish a book with them. That exceeds the protected use.
As has been dug out with all this, it is seemingly clearly not a Flickr issue at all, however. The site is grabbing these images across the whole of the interwebs, wherever there are public images, and Flickr is just one of a thousand places these images can be taken from. There is no "protection" from such uses, just your own decision whether or not you care if this unprotected, infringing use, is on the scale of things, all that damaging, compared to how the next guy might really screw with your stuff.
In other words, the sky is always falling. It's not always falling with much harmful momentum. I'm having a laugh at these guys more for how inept they were at the setup, more than I am that what they're doing really hurts me and mine.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
But they are not selling anything, cellphone or otherwise. They are letting people nominate search results.
Hey, I am not saying I agree with it. It seems absolutely tacky that someone can win a stupid camera submitting any my photos (search result or otherwise).
But really, do you think you can defeat MSN's own Intellectual Property lawyers? Good luck. I have always held that copyright most often only benefit the big corporations not individual artists.
How likely would Microsoft back off from this and admit wrongdoing? Zero.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 16 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah, imagine if the search returned 10 websites, and you dragged a thumbnail of one to a dotted rectangle to nominate it. Would that be ok?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sorry, poor example. Sales are irrelevant, a sufficiently infringing use can damage the sales potential of the image for the creator, regardless if profit is derived by the infringer.
And what are you talking about? It's a promotional contest, slathered with Nikon ads everywhere. The only way the promotional contest functions, is via the large pool of images. No images, no ill-conceived contest.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Microsoft legal department responded earlier this afternoon:
"Microsoft will obtain the consent of the copyright owner in relation to all images that will be featured on www.iconicbritain.co.uk during the Voting and Reveal stages of the competition."
Sincerely,
J.K. Weston
Legal and Corporate Affairs
Microsoft Corporation USA
They certainly aren't claiming that they have the right to use these images without the photographer's explicit consent.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I told you so.
Good luck, everyone, with the DMCA takedowns Microsoft helped write.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
To me, it looks like a search engine. Other search engines show ads, so the commercial nature is nothing new. They don't link back, which is poor form. But I don't think MS is making any copies of this image for the contest. Most likely, when you drag the image, it creates a pointer to the image, and probably the webpage where the image comes from. If that's what they do, there are no new copies made during this part of the contest.
I still don't GET the point of the contest, but whatever. Silly marketing team that thought they were clever.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Considering the thingy you have to click to enter an image, says among other things:
"Entrants acknowledge that some images generated by Live Search may be subject to the intellectual property rights (including copyright) of a third party. Microsoft does not encourage or condone Entrants submitting images to the Competition that infringe the rights of a third party. In the event Microsoft is notified that an image infringes the intellectual property rights, or any other right, of a third party it shall promptly remove the image from the Competition."
And you're pulling these images in via random search, I find it very difficult to believe that their left hand knows what their right is doing.
On the one hand, they forbid you from submitting any image you don't directly own. And on the other, are now saying they're going to somehow contact each person who owns each submitted image? In spite of specifically disallowing entry for any such images?
They have no clue what they're doing.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jakerome: in my experience, search engines show search results. thumbnails aren't results, they're small representations of the results, if the supposed search "fair use" protections are to be believed.
So showing the representation of a result, without showing the result, pretty much fails as a search engine.
Works as a free content generator for a promotional contest, though.
Like I said, the sky falls softly on this one, as far as I'm concerned. But I think Nikon might want to take a hard look at what they're slapping their brand onto, and what they think they're promoting.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher
The contest had 4 judges this morning, one from Nikon. By late afternoon they were down to 3. Nikon pulled its judge out of the whole process.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jayel Aheram
I've already gotten their acknowledgment of my takedown notice. They're following the rules pretty promptly.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
they didn't pull their prizes, logos or graphics. So that's a little half-hearted I think. But then that stuff is built and signed off on so far in advance, maybe not much they can do. Cross their fingers and hope it doesn't get blogged on Boing Boing or something.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why keep arguing with two people who don't even believe in copyright? If it were up to them, any image could be used anywhere by anyone -- that's the entire gist of their argument.
Which pretty much sucks because they're trying to cram their world view down everyone else's throats.
A search engine links back to the page it's searching -- that's the very definition of a search engine: to search content and to tell you where on the web that content is found. This application does not do that. This application instead uses thumbnails as an actionable method by which a user who does not have the rights to that image can enter a contest.
How does that fall under fair use?
How does that constitute this site acting like a search engine?
I'm sure Jake and Jayel won't even bother trying to answer those questions. Everything's free -- everything is fair use - everyone should share everything with anybody.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You have me completely wrong zyrcsyer. I won't respond beyond that because the Help Forum should be a place for civil discussions, and I intend to be entirely civil.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hey look at that zyrcster, you're right.
Regardless if the heckle and jeckle of make-it-then-set-it-for-free have their particularly rigid and often misleading views, doesn't mean they haven't had a couple of good points in there. Mostly that it really isn't Flickr's responsibility. Also that sometimes a reality check is good, just because someone may be technically in the wrong, doesn't mean it's really that big a deal.
Oh wait that was my [insightful] point.
Anyway, since Microsoft itself is honoring a takedown notice of their thumbnail content, it appears they agree with the mainstream, and recognize misused content when they generate it. Or they recognize it's better to err on the side of caution, which is close enough.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I found two of my images in their stored collection of un-attributed images of ‘iconic’ Britain. One of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the other of the train station at the Olympic site in Sydney.
So, if that is an example of the search engine they are tyring to promote, I’m staying with Google!
I thought I might get into the swing of things, and I entered my Sydney Harbour Bridge photo, and in the comments field (where you explain why this is an iconic image) I advised that this particular piece of ironwork is the prettiest bridge across the Thames River …
BTW, another irritating part of this is that when you submit an image from this pool of images selected for you, you can re title the image to what ever you want. Now I know some people spend a LOT of time considering the image / title combination… another example of the poor execution of this whole concept.
And I did not even win a camera...
But I did send a shitty e-mial to Microsoft / Nikon / iconincbritain at the addresses listed above.... flood them with e-mial I say!
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I just got an email saying that the damned thing will be taken down at 1pm today.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
The Iconic Britain site is so confusing. Anyway, I tried clicking the "Vote Now" button, entered my flickr name in the Live Search bar, and the same results show up, but this time with links to the sources.
None of my photos that came up in the search results link back to my flickr account, but some link back to my deviantart and JPG accounts. Meanwhile, most of them link back to other people's MySpaces, blogs, etc. Who knows who stole my photos in the first place... I even found one picture with my watermark removed! Argh.
So it's possible that the Icon Britain site did not really harvest photos from flickr, but other sites... Well, in my case anyway.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh there is no doubt that they have used content from where ever they could find it. It seems that they are using some part of their search database. Except that rather than use the database for the original purposes intended, (indexing the web), they have used it as the source of some online game to promote their commercial web activities.
Its like taking the thumbs of the first 50 images from explore and using them in an online gambling game. For £1 a go pick 3 images and if you match our selection you win £10, pick them in the same order as we did you win £1000.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
When I searched for my name I found some of my images, one which showed up twice! How do our pictures end up there, have other people entered them in the competition? Since one pic shows up twice and that's the one I consider to be my best I'm beginning to wonder.
I've never even been to Britain. Oh well, off to read the other thread.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I think it was that they culled these images thru the search engine. So now they have them in a database, per se. So then when someone, whomever, searches a word, they'll get photo results back. They can then submit your photo if they think it represents Britain. Then, if their submission(which is really your uncredited photo) is selected as representing Britain well, they win a camera. That's what I've gathered from all the posts here.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
indeed...
and they display images in a pretty large size, too (up to 168 by 168).
of course i found my ARR photos on they website, and anyone can submit my photos to their promotional "win a camera" contest.
their terms and conditions ( www.iconicbritain.com/terms.html ) say:
[...]
submit an image. To submit an image, perform a Live Search to find an image which represents Britain. Drag the image into the competition toolbar and click "Next". Entrants must then give the image a name, select the appropriate category, give an explanation why the image represents Britain and click "Submit" ("Submission Entry"); (together, an "Entry", and persons making such Entries, an "Entrant").
7.
Entrants acknowledge that some images generated by Live Search may be subject to the intellectual property rights (including copyright) of a third party. Microsoft does not encourage or condone Entrants submitting images to the Competition that infringe the rights of a third party. In the event Microsoft is notified that an image infringes the intellectual property rights, or any other right, of a third party it shall promptly remove the image from the Competition.
so basically MSFT says that they will only do something if a photographer complains about an image used illegally. however, for flickr images, there is a way for them to know if the image is ARR, so if they wanted to, they could eliminate those images upfront. of course thise would require them to do some work.
this is so typical of what's happening with photos everywhere on the "web 2.0" (i.e. dynamic mashup sites). and if MSFT does that, anyone will think they can do the same..
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then, if their submission(which is really your uncredited photo) is selected as representing Britain well, they win a camera. That's what I've gathered from all the posts here.
That isn't what is happening. People that submit photos have a chance of winning a cheap camera - sort of 1 winner every hour chosen at random - the competition is something else, but is being used as a promotional vehicle to get people to use the MS search engine. The things in the competition may or may not have been already selected.
so basically MSFT says that they will only do something if a photographer complains about an image used illegally
What about MS using the image illegally on their site?
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm leaving my stuff there at the moment. If by some miracle one of my images wins the havoc I can cause is really worthwhile.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
See? Iansand is thinking. Wait for an actual infringement to occur and then pounce.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If it is just a search engine - then why don't all of my photos show up? Why do only 6 of my copyrighted all rights reserved photos show up? It just doesn't make sense to me.
The iconicbritain website has ended their entry period of the contest and you can no longer search for your images on their site. Although when I did the LiveSearch at the top of the web page using my Flickr username, I got no results this time.
I guess the e-mail NOI's worked.
Posted 16 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
