Discussions (12790)

i'm tired of giving people permission to use my photos

view profile

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

over the past couple of days i've been contacted by four people over flickr mail, IM and multiple emails, asking for my permission to use my photos, for free, in various publications.

and i'm sick of it.

sometimes these people have long permissions forms to read and sign, bug me repeatedly over getting my name to use as attribution and so on. so often simply granting permission requires multiple emails and a fair deal of nuisance toward me.

i license my photos as Creative Commons specifically so people and organizations don't have to waste their time asking for my permission. maybe i have to put a line like "you may use this photo for commercial and non-commercial purposes without asking my permission" in the description of all my photos.

i hate that the simple re-use of an image posted to the web has become a complicated legal dance where various designers are deathly afraid of being sued, and so engage in complicated legal footwork just to republish a photo i took of a fire-axe on a wall with essentially zero effort. sometimes, due to all the legal red tape that now seems to exist, it is more effort for me to grant permission than was actually expended making and uploading the photo.

so, just to put this out there - please. please if you're going to use a photo that is CC licensed, please don't ALSO ask for specific permission. permission is already granted by the license.
10:36AM, 3 April 2008 PDT (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

Seriously, it's driving me nuts too.

If anyone else asks me to give permission to use your photos, I am just going to post a blanket "yes go ahead" statement in my profile.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Niko R. says:

I have to say that I think what you are doing goes against everything I hold as a principle about giving permits to use photos. By giving freebies, you are not helping the industry at all. That´s all I have to say.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

fallsroad says:

The problem is that few people who want to legitimately use a photo read, or if they do read, subsequently understand the attached license.

CC is a great idea (all mine are CC), but few people seem to really comprehend what the licenses do and do not permit.

Hence, those who are not lifting images without regard to licensing wind up contacting the owner to avoid any problems or hassles down the road.

It's the flip side of owner's protecting their copyright.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

"you are not helping the industry"


Heh. I was called to shoot a hollywood award ceremony. I quoted them a more than reasonable price and a day later I got this email:

"Hi Caleb-

Thank you so much for getting back to me quickly with all of your information. I was trying to get an answer for you as soon as I could. We decided to go another route (someone will do it for free) but I will absolutely keep your information for any future events. I appreciate e-mails.

Thank you so much,

XXXX"
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

01101001 01100001 01101110 says:

Caleb...i am doing it for free
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

I don't think proper use of Creative Commons is hurting the industry at all. I think the fact digital photography is cheap and easier to work than film has made every yahoo with a nikon d50 or rebel xti or sony alpha more than happy to work for free to "get their foot in the door".
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

I am so going to hit you with my 5D the next time you visit, Ian.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

Hell, some people shoot for free -especially in this town- because they get to rub elbows with celebrities.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

01101001 01100001 01101110 says:

I am not doing to rub elbows but i will be rubbing
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

By giving freebies, you are not helping the industry at all.

heaven forbid.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

TheDamnMushroom says:

Don't brag.

It's an honor for people to want to use your photo, one that doesn't happen to most people, and a priviledge when people are polite enough to ask first, since just taking them without a word seems to be the norm.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Titimo says:

i agree with the mushroom
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Darren Oerly says:

Ummmm, you could always just say no. Quit acting like it is such a burden having someone like your photo enough to want to publish it
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

YA D00D.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

rgdaniel says:

I also hate it when women throw themselves at me. What a hassle.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

'SeraphimC says:

Well, it makes walking down the street with a coffee in hand pretty difficult, that's for sure.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Stevekin says:

"Ummmm, you could always just say no."

Ummmm, he doesn't want to say no. He just doesn't want people to ask, as he's given permission with a CC license already.
His burden is unnecessarily having to tell them twice that they can use them....because they didn't read ;-)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Ottoman42 says:

Well in my experience when someone asks to use a photo they want to do more than what the CC license I have allows so it makes sense for them to ask.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walwyn says:

Just ignore them or block them.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

teh resa says:

I don't think it has been made more difficult for photo editors to get free photos. I think it is easier to get free photos than it used to be. Its easier to find and buy photos than it used to be - fewer unsolicited photos to look at, Fed Ex, SASE, all that.

CC is not a guarantee that someone won't change the licence later on and claim that the photo was stolen. Communicating with the people who use your cc photos can't be a bad thing unless you are very busy or anti-social or something. It gives the photographer extra information for their portfolio - if they should ever decide to go pro they might want to be able to point to where their photos have been published.


I hate all the nosy questions that the blood doner clinic asks when I give blood. Maybe I should just give them a little card that says they can use my blood? They can stamp the card every time. Its a gift, Its not a photo - I didn't steal it. The original blood owner isn't going to come back and claim that it belonged to her. Its mine, you can have it, I don't have any diseases, you can test it for disease if you think I'm lying.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

skooal says:

What is it like to get people to ask you this kind of things? I've never got that... (don't bother saying it's cause your pics are shite)... Lol!!!
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Stevekin says:

Sure, that's understandable :)
It just seems Darren misunderstood is all ;-)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bruce-p says:

1. I should be so unlucky.

2. I disagree entirely.

Ther-esa has pretty much got the point. If I were sourcing images, and I was working for a reputable company, I would insist on written, binding authorisation from the author of the work in each and every instance.

The nature of the internet is that it is transitory – and unreliable. In two years time what evidence do I have that a ‘CC’ flagged photo I used was, in fact, a ‘CC’ licence photo at the time I downloaded a copy - and that my use of that image then and today complies with that licence?

To manage the legal exposure and risk you would need to have on file a screen shot of the page on Flickr showing the photo in conjunction with the CC licence logo, evidence of the date that screen shot was taken, plus a copy of the specific CC licence terms referred to in that screen shot, all in a form which can not be (easily) amended / corrupted / questioned.

The higher the profile of the usage, the higher the risk of adverse consequences if the author chooses at some time in the future to contest the usage of an image previously ‘licensed’ under the ‘CC’ regime.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

ⓅⒶⓎⓅⒶⓊⓁ says:

Yaaws I vant to suck your blood Ther﹣esa!

Hmmm. When was the last time a Vampire asked for permission?
I'd be flattered if I had four people in a small matter of days ask me for permission to use my photos.
Especially this one.
"Lady Of The Lake" by PayPaul(Leader Of The
WW Tribe)
[?]
Lady Of The Lake
ages ago (permalink)

magnificent act [deleted] says:

I would love for people to ask me for permission to use my photos. But I guess one in a 3 month period should be enough. Heck, they are only being polite however annyoying they might be.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

styler* says:

the reason why
is that everyone is so scared from users who license their images but don't mean it
and then cry wolf

it ruins it all
but then also think the 'blog this' button not actually giving approval for blogging is annoying
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

purplewon2000 says:

This is so odd, not the usual(This person/company/blogger/magaziine) stole my photo type thread one finds in FlickrCentral. I'd be grateful if people thought my photography was good enough to use, plus, an e-mail is a nice thing. They can print it out and say they asked your permission to use your photo if you ever change your licencing agreement.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

I'd be grateful if people thought my photography was good enough to use

my photos are generally pretty hideous, i just tag most of them well and they happen to be of random junk someone happens to need a basic, boring photo of. they search "emergency fire axe" and find my photo and use it not because it is good, but because it happens to be a photo of an emergency fire axe.

these are *not* good photos and i don't pretend they are. ego is irrelevant, making people jump through unnecessary hoops is.

'an e-mail is a nice thing.'

here's an example of what i'm complaining about, it's more than just "email is nice".

a company contacts me wanting to use my work. i explain to them that the license is CC and that they can use it for free. they say they have a procedure to follow, and send me some forms to fill out. i tell them i don't want to take the time to fill out their lengthy forms [most of the fields they could fill out themselves] and say in my email that i grant their company non-exclusive rights to the photo, in perpetuity. they agree and publish the photo. all that i granted them were the same right already available to them in the CC license.

is it so crazy to ask that they respect a license i've added to a photo just to save them time, and myself time?

They can print it out and say they asked your permission to use your photo if you ever change your licensing agreement.

they can print out a screen capture of the photo + license even more easily than that, if they're truly worried. there's probably even an internet archive cache of the photo + cc license.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
striatic edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

pixability says:

I have to agree that a request granted could be alot of work, and when its free it begs the question why should the giver spend more time to benefit the recipient.

I recently was asked to use a photo (that was All rights reserved) and given its intended use by a non-profit I indicated I would be happy to offer a limited use license (I had one ready, modified it slightly, and forwarded it to them). They responded that the terms were too restrictive and that they would prefer that I grant an unrestricted release and sent me their legal documents, a full release. Upon responding that in granting the free use of a (c) image I did not want to release its use as in their document which appeared to allow perpetual use or even use in other endeavors not related to the non-profit (now I was dealing with a "branding agency" as an agent of the non-profit.
So after reviewing their legal documents, forwarding mine, and then sending a revision that I was comfortable with I never heard back and no final documents were signed. I'd wasted at least 2 hours in my act of generosity only to be snubbed when the gift was to be limited to their stated use only....frustrating to the nth degree.

The recipient of a gifted image, cc or otherwise, needs to make it as painless as possible on the donor.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
pixability edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Record Makers Photography says:

people may work for free to get their foot in the door but their won't be anything in side by the time they are done.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walt Jabsco says:

what do you expect when posting photographs on the web........this isn't an album that sits in your drawer that no one exce[pt family looks at........If you don't give them permission then say so in a quick reply........you should feel flattered..........sheesh.......????!!!!!
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

taka_itaha says:

If a company wants to use a CC-licensed photo, then why do you fill out forms?

It is not that you have to fill out their forms. If you don't feel like doing that, then don't.

And else you can can just create an account on some stockphoto site. If someone wants your photo, you put it there, and they can get it for 50 cents. That surely is cheaper for them than having their personnel spend hours sending and checking forms.
ages ago (permalink)

jittery purpose [deleted] says:

God, this thread is such a refreshing change to the glut of mildly copyfascist threads we have the past months.

I agree, Striatic. It can be a bit frustrating, but I see it as an opportunity to educate people about Creative Common licenses. I am thinking of typing up a template email that fully explains the licenses and the licenses I publish under and just copy-and-paste that.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

taka_itaha says:

> the glut of mildly copyfascist threads

Copyfascists?
Is that the level of discussion we have to come to here?

CC licenses are evil.
- they never expire.
- they come in so many flavors that it needs a legal education to use work with such a license. Education, my ass.
- It requires a reference to the author. A screen name != author. Or is it? Unclear at least
- It requires that the license is added. On internet a link is fine, but in print that is hopeless.

If you really think that your photos should be freely used by anyone, just make them public domain. If you want to advertise your work (because the only incentive for CC-licenses above Public Domain is the name of the creator), go to a stock photography site and sell your photos for a few cents each.

Really, what is the point of CC-licenses?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sweet distin says:

God, this thread is such a refreshing change to the glut of mildly copyfascist threads we have the past months.


way to go, jayel!
:)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walwyn says:

Really, what is the point of CC-licenses?

It keeps stuff out of the hands of "Evil Empires"
www.tangledwilderness.org/pdfs/copyright-web.pdf
ages ago (permalink)

jittery purpose [deleted] says:

I will admit, I have mixed feelings about Creative Commons licenses. But not in the usual way.

I do not agree that I even have the right to "license" ideas represented by my work. Ideas do not have licenses. And who am I to demand attribution or demand that those who create derivatives of my work publish their work in the same license? Once a person creates a derivative of my work that is transformative enough, what right do I have to demand some control, in any way, of their work?
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
jittery purpose edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Walwyn says:

I do not agree that I even have the right to "license" ideas

You have no problems then ideas aren't copyrightable.

And who am I to demand attribution or demand that those who create derivatives of my work publish their work in the same license?

Because if not then there is a likelihood that the work will only be available under a more restrictive license of the derivative.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Walwyn edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Ghgfiu says:

You have every right, as it's your work. And the fact that you choose to give it away is an exercise of that right which, without you having such rights, you wouldn't otherwise be able to do.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Ghgfiu says:

"You have no problems then ideas aren't copyrightable."

Not only are they copyrightable, they're patentable (however you have to apply the idea in some way).
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Ghgfiu edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Michael Smith says:

Nope, you can't patent an idea. You can patent a process or a device. Not an idea.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walwyn says:

@ap4a

There is only so much misinformation I can deal with each day.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

janwalkerimages says:

I'm always flattered and pleased when someone is considerate enough to ask permission for use rather than simply grabbing and running with it - possibly utilizing it in a manner that would appear I was in favor of something reprehensible to me such as promoting racism, promoting child abuse, etc. While it is frustrating when you spend time exchanging releases and other legal documents only to have the "project" dropped I would much rather have someone do me the courtesy of asking. I've had WAAYYY too many companies and individuals simply reach and and grab images to use without permission to the point that I finally felt it was necessary to make my images private until I can put text across each and every one stating copyright.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Ghgfiu says:

Yes you can. The pertinent requirement under UK law is that "Your invention must be capable of being made or used in an industry." Not that you have made or used it.

A bit more misinformation: www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1646125,00.html
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Michael Smith says:

ap4a - what you are describing is not an 'idea'; it's an invention. And inventions don't have to have been manufactured in order to be inventions.

An idea is 'a car that flies'. An invention is a description of how you would make a car that flies. You can patent the second, but not the first.

EDIT: The Grauniad article muddies the waters by confusing processes with ideas.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Michael Smith edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Walwyn says:

EDIT: The Grauniad article muddies the waters by confusing processes with ideas.

Its probably a typo.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

[ Noktor-Matic ] says:

everyone should pay for EVERY photo you take, if they want it
it offends me that people are giving them away!!
i charge my friends (they gladly pay for my services)
honestly
don't ruin it for us,
CHARGE!!
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Michael Smith says:

it offends me that people are giving them away!!

Do all gifts offend you, or just gifts of photographs?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

ⓅⒶⓎⓅⒶⓊⓁ says:

Gifs really offend me. Nonsense with no apparent porpoise is quite annoying. That's why I created this:
"Golden Nonsense Award Banner03" by PayPaul(Leader Of The
WW Tribe)
[?]
Golden Nonsense Award Banner03
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Ghgfiu says:

You've just described a form of idea. An invention is an idea that may have a real world application if created. The fact that the idea has been put down on paper doesn't change the fact that it's an idea.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

'don't ruin it for us,
CHARGE!! '


you're being sarcastic, right?

should i also charge my mom, or any friend of mine, if i do some basic home repair work for them? so as not to offend, i dunno, drywallers?

my taking photos to post to flickr is hardly even "work", frankly. it requires little forethought, no marketing and little to no physical labour. it's something i do as a matter of course, as a way to communicate with my friends.

also, why does my saying "yes." in a highly informal flickr mail better protect a company than the a much better defined creative commons license, which outlines all the the rights i'm handing over to the company?

if companies require permission by email as a matter of policy, is it so audacious to suggest that it is a dumb, unnecessary and inefficient policy?

companies do engage in dumb, unecessary and inefficient behaviours from time to time.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
striatic edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

oh, and why would someone subscribe to the capitalistic notion that absolutely everything has a market value, even if it wasn't intended for the market to begin with .. and yet adhere to the highly socialist notion that it is everybody else's job to go out of their way to help you, by charging for their photos?

in a truly free market, people should be able to charge whatever they want for anything, even "nothing".
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

taka_itaha says:

striatic, you do not have to respond on emails.

In doing so, you only confirm the business practices that you no longer want to deal with.

Unless of course you want them to use your photo in stead of another. You charge something: you want your name mentioned. And you want the license cited. That is not for free.

Creative Commons is only complicating things. It is in itself not a legal category, but it is a complicated and unsigned one-way contract. Let me fantasize a bit. Somebody hacks flickr and sets all photos on flickr on a CC license. Flickr is quick to repair the situation, so it lasts only 10 minutes. But afterwards there is no way of knowing for each individual image if it was the hacker who changed the license or the rightful owner.

Now anyone can claim that it saw an image on flickr during the hack as CC-licensed. Who has to prove what?

Flickr maybe should not have the option to CC-license an image at all.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walwyn says:

companies do engage in dumb, unecessary and inefficient behaviours from time to time.

That's because many people don't understand what they are doing when they license a work under CC, and the companies presumably want to make sure that the copyright holder understands what they are licensing. Additionally just because someone has put a CC license on a photo on flickr doesn't necessarily mean that they actually hold the copyright on the image. A company wanting to reuse it may want to ensure that they have some paper trail in case it all goes tits up.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

'Now anyone can claim that it saw an image on flickr during the hack as CC-licensed. Who has to prove what?'

that magical fantasy situation could apply to any site using any license for any thing.

i mean if istockphoto got 'hacked' you could change the terms to say that purchasing the image created an exclusive, non-revokable agreement that the image could never be used by anyone else.

or i could hack flickr and change all the copyright notices to link to some page claiming the images are public domain.

using a rather unrealistic scenario, you're describing a problem with 'hacking' - not with CC specifically.

'A company wanting to reuse it may want to ensure that they have some paper trail in case it all goes tits up. '

screenshot it. no more or less legit than an email. takes a bit more effort to fake, even.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
striatic edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

personne.de.chandigarh says:

@ striatic : "and i'm sick of it."

Well, at least they asked. Have you considered how many people simply take pictures off the internet and use these as they please without so much as a thank-you?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

taka_itaha says:

> i mean if istockphoto got 'hacked' you could change the terms to say that purchasing the image created an exclusive, non-revokable agreement that the image could never be used by anyone else.

Ah, but the difference is that on flickr each image is licensed individually, and there is no way to know if a particular image had a CC license because it was hacked, or because the user gave it that license. A hack that changes the general text on a page is clearly a hack.

But more importantly (and that is my own fault) you ignore what I see as my core arguments:

* You still want something back for the use of your images. Your images are not really free. It might well be that comapnies are not interested in your offer to use your images. In fact, what you write proves exactly that. You think you make a good offer, but the companies who want to use your photos do not like that offer.

* There is no obligation from your part to negotiate with the companies. You are fully in your right to ignore their requests.

* CC is not a legal category. It is a complicated unsigned one-way contract.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

'Well, at least they asked.'

the asking is precisely the problem. it is repetitive, annoying, and often overly convoluted.

'Have you considered how many people simply take pictures off the internet and use these as they please without so much as a thank-you'

just because some people don't ask for the necessary permissions, doesn't mean that other people should be asking for permission they already have.

anyway it is like if i gave you a gift - but then you turned around and said "wait! sign this form so i can prove this is a gift, in case you accuse me of stealing it in the future."

pixability puts it very well:

The recipient of a gifted image, cc or otherwise, needs to make it as painless as possible on the donor.

in the case of my photos, "as painless as possible" means simply using the image as prescribed in the license.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

'* You still want something back for the use of your images. Your images are not really free.'

you're confusing it.

the photos are free. my time is not.

'You think you make a good offer, but the companies who want to use your photos do not like that offer.'

most of the time, i just point them at the CC license and then they end up using the photo under those terms.

this is really about following one size fits all procedures, rather than adopting more efficient procedures that integrate CC and would save everyone a lot of time/money over the coming years.

'There is no obligation from your part to negotiate with the companies. You are fully in your right to ignore their requests.'

i'm also fully in my right to suggest they adopt procedures that are likely to benefit both them and me.

this accomplishes more in the long run.

'* CC is not a legal category.

yes. and?

'It is a complicated unsigned one-way contract.'

it isn't particularly complicated, and the other two points are really benefits for them, not me.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
striatic edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

taka_itaha says:

> the photos are free. my time is not.

You want them to apply the CC-license. That means mentioning your name and pointing to the CC-license. Which may or may not be good acceptable conditions.

> most of the time, i just point them at the CC license and then they end up using the photo under those terms.

That sounds a lot simpler then at the start of this discussion. I had the impression that you actually did fill out those long forms they send you.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Muffet says:

Many of the people who have asked to use my image are artists who want to incorporate it into something else, such as a flyer for a nonprofit. Sorry, but I believe in giving certain things away for free. It's my way of donating without shelling out cash. For example, there is a place near me called the Healing Garden. They offer many free and low-cost services to people with cancer, as well as their families. They don't have a lot of money, and I'm happy to give them an image to use on cards or on their website. If that ruins a potential sale for an up-and-coming young professional photographer, so be it.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

I had the impression that you actually did fill out those long forms they send you.

i specifically said that i didn't fill out the forms, in one of my comments.

You want them to apply the CC-license. That means mentioning your name and pointing to the CC-license. Which may or may not be good acceptable conditions.

i don't mind being asked permission to not attribute, but that's often not what's being asked. a lot of the time the flickr mail will say "oh and we'll attribute you!" as if that was some kind of compensation.

somewhat tangentially - the purpose of attribution under CC isn't "fame", nor does the attribution have to be prominent. it is meant to help trace the lineage of the license back to the source photo. the original CC licenses actually didn't specify attribution as a requirement. if there was an attribution-less version of CC i'd use that instead, but i can see how the attribution is useful for people wanting to re-use something they have seen being re-used.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

fd says:

Does anyone know why Flickr doesn't support the CC Public Domain dedication for individual photo streams (similar to the "no known copyright restrictions" of The Commons)?

creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

leafy says:

wtf? ... i don't grant CC license to a pic to be freely taken without contact and permission ... if you don't care, then you need to spell that out ... some rights are still reserved under a CC license ... and the burden is on the photographer to give the details of the license ... or simply ignore the emails and treat them like any other spam ...
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

Does anyone know why Flickr doesn't support the CC Public Domain dedication for individual photo streams

The PD dedication is very much US-only (even more so than the v2.0 CC licenses Flickr still uses), and there are some large questions about its legality even there. Outside the US it's a nice thing to say, but doesn't carry any more weight than that.

Leafy: if you want contact and permission, you shouldn't use the CC license, because what the CC licenses actually spell out is that contact and permission aren't required.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

'Does anyone know why Flickr doesn't support the CC Public Domain dedication for individual photo streams'

stewart once mentioned that this was for both legal and UI reasons. one aspect of the PD declaration is that it isn't revokable, so you have to be extra careful about it. if flickr did it they'd need a clunky UI to make absolutely sure you wanted to add each image to the public domain.

personally, i don't like the PD declaration because one day i might change my mind about sharing my photos freely [even though i think it is pretty unlikely at this point].

i thought about manually adding a PD license to my photos at one point, so i wouldn't have to burden people with attribution. i decided against it because of the permanent nature of such a decision, and also because i did some design work with CC images and found that adding the attribution wasn't nearly as burdensome as i initially thought, and it exposes an interesting bit of information that might interest viewers/readers.

basically, instead of the copyright notice that companies plaster on photos they use, there's a cc notice instead, which is extremely similar visually.

but if there was a cc license that didn't require attribution, i'd surely use it. they have some good reasons not to provide such a license, however.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
striatic edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Ottoman42 says:

This has been quite the informative walkthrough of CC I've seen in a long while. Slightly OT but still slight relevant is there a flickr idea thread asking Flickr to update the CC licenses. I'd much prefer the newest version to keep my photos safe.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sharaff says:

striatic
if you are tired, have this flickr.com/photos/shoken/2385209743/
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Walwyn says:

screenshot it. no more or less legit than an email. takes a bit more effort to fake, even.

Life's a bitch eh?
ages ago (permalink)

laughable hobbies [deleted] says:

stewart once mentioned that this was for both legal and UI reasons. one aspect of the PD declaration is that it isn't revokable, so you have to be extra careful about it. if flickr did it they'd need a clunky UI to make absolutely sure you wanted to add each image to the public domain.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the CC licenses are non-revokable as well. You can cease to distribute a CC-licensed image, or continue to distribute previously CC-licensed photos under new terms, but you have no power to revoke the rights of anyone who obtained an image from you under a valid CC-license provided they continue to respect the terms of the license.

Likewise, you can cease to distribute a public-domain image, but you cannot un-release copies that are already in the public domain.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

alex, you're right, as far as your example goes, but the real difference is in the language of the PD dedication. It's different from a CC license in that where a CC license is an agreement between two parties, the dedication is a unilateral assertion. You are, very literally, giving up the ability to ever claim copyright on the dedicated material.

In slightly different terms, if I get tired of the CC license I'm using, I can simply swap it for a different one, stop publishing images altogether, or revert to full ARR, all because I still maintain the copyright.

If I get tired of the PD dedication, I have one option: stop publishing the image. I cannot switch it to a different license, or distribute it under any different terms. I have given up the copyright, in perpetuity, and can't ever have it back.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
matt edited this topic ages ago.

laughable hobbies [deleted] says:

I appreciate the finality of the PD declaration, but I think the CC-license also has far-reaching and permanent terms.

Sure, you can revert to an ARR license after licensing under the CC-terms, but the CC-licenses (as I interpret them) allow for redistribution of a work in perpetuity, and provide new recipients the same rights as the original licensee. Any subsequent license you grand must respect the CC-licenses you’ve already provided—specifically, they must be non-exclusive. And you must respect that others continue to be free to share your photo under the original terms you’ve provided, regardless of whatever license you've subsequently applied.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

Yes, and no one's arguing that you're correct as far as CC goes. But 'granting a perpetual license' is still a pretty significant distance away from 'totally revoking all copyright', and is a pretty good justification for not offering it as an option.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sgoralnick says:

i am sick of my clients not wanting to pay for imagery, searchinging and finding great cc-licensed-for-commercial-use photos, and the agecy art buyer being to terrified to recommend using them since people licence their images not knowing what it means, see a mega-brand using them and turn around a sue. :P
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sUtORs says:

Whoa!! nice thread.. finally something fun to read...!
I'm sick and tired of those: "i posted my picture on the internet and found it somewhere else..."
And why does everyone want to charge for everything nowdays?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Lars Pohlmann says:

>see a mega-brand using them and turn around a sue.

i don't see this happening. a mega-brand wants to use unique images. it would be a major embarrassment to them to see the same photo they use for a camaign in another place.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Pacdog says:

Great thread topic. I can see where a few professional photographers have felt a pinch in business due to technology and advancement of the digital camera and Photo sites like Flickr, but as with all technologies, to live in the past means your left behind. I'm not sure of the numbers of the last decade how many photos have been uploaded to the net, but I can tell you the digital movement is only really just begun and the laws will take years to catch up. Lawsuits imho are not being used in the extent more then people uploading works then yelling foul that their work has been stolen. You made the original available Thu some site on the web and somebody stole it and called it their own? Common! It's a big growing pain the whole net is feeling and your going to have to learn to protect your stuff. Don't come here and say "somebody stole my picture" cause your also at fault for allowing them.. BTW: feel free to grab up all my stuff under the CC license or just steal it!

Cause at the end of the day? I just like the exposure!
ages ago (permalink)

jittery purpose [deleted] says:

I appreciate the finality of the PD declaration, but I think the CC-license also has far-reaching and permanent terms.

There is this odd dichotomy in people's mind between Creative Commons licenses and copyrights. People do not realize that it is because of copyright that give the licenses their teeth. And it is subject to the same limitations, namely the Fair Use doctrine.

Even if you license your images under a CC-Non-Derivative license (or ARR), Fair Use overrides that (including attribution).

As for Taka_Itaha's insistence that CCs are not legally recognized, they are as legal as the EULAs that software companies plaster all over their products. Whereas EULAs are agreements between the seller and the consumer upon a sale, CCs are agreements between the donor and the user upon use.

So, back on topic: I understand Striatic's frustration. People are wasting their time asking for permission when permission was already granted.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Pacdog says:

Fly on the wall.

every fly has a different way to them even though they are just flys.

We all just flys on the wall.
ages ago (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).