dotben 7:02am, 22 January 2009
According to the FAQ, participation in the Getty program requires any photos chosen to be moved back from Creative Commons Non-Commercial Use to 'full rights reserved copyright'.

I'm really concerned about this for a number of reasons, which I've written up at benmetcalfe.com/blog/2009/01/flickr-getty-images-deal-req... -- but in a nutshell:

* Creative Commons Non-Commercial use does not preclude the work owner or Getty from licensing (read:selling) the work commercially for $, and having full protection from people using the work via the CC license for commercial use.

* Perhaps more importantly, you can't actually revoke a Creative Commons license as it is granted in perpetuity of the lifetime of the work. See Article 7 (Termination) Clause 2 of your CC license: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode

As a big proponent in Creative Commons, I'm really disappointed in Flickr for this. I'm particularly disgusted that Flickr is asking people to revoke licenses that are granted in perpetuity and I'm also saddened that it didn't defend CC-NC as being compatible with Getty's program.

I'd love to hear Heather (or someone else from Flickr's) perspective on this please.

dotBen
dotben 8 years ago
BTW just wanted to paste in the part I am referring to from the FAQ (which lives at www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/):

-----

Can I sell my Creative Commons-licensed content?

There is a chance one of your Creative Commons-licensed photos may catch the eye of a perceptive Getty Images editor. You are welcome to upload these photos into the Flickr collection on Getty Images, but you are contractually obliged to reserve all rights to sale for your work sold via Getty Images. If you proceed with your submission, switching your license to All Rights Reserved (on Flickr) will happen automatically.

If you’re not cool with that, that’s totally cool. It just means that particular photo will need to stay out of the Flickr collection on Getty Images.
Ian Kershaw 8 years ago
Thanks for raising this point Ben. I can't see how they can revoke a CC license either.
Agreed, Ben. I can imagine someone using a CC licensed image on their blog first, the Flickr member selling their photo to Getty second and then Getty suing the blog owner over an image they believed correctly to be under the CC license third. Getty is very proactive with protecting its property too.

Flickr Legal Team: Please investigate.
Brenda Anderson PRO 8 years ago
If you've licensed a photo as CC, there is no way to guarantee exclusivity to Getty because anyone who acquired the image whilst it was CC licensed has a perpetual right to use it. So, to my mind, any CC image should be ineligible.
ryanmcginnisphoto PRO 8 years ago
Agreed. A bit like trying to move RF to RM... it doesn't work that way.
dotben 8 years ago
@Brenda Anderson: I'm also wondering why Getty needs 'exclusivity'?

They're job is to sell the photo to someone who wants a non-exclusive license to it (ie Getty can sell it to others too) - so I also don't get why this is necessary.
Frankie Roberto 8 years ago
I think they're within their legal rights to do this - as asking users to remove the CC licence link isn't actually revoking the licence, it just isn't actively advertising it (which, being the copyright holder, they're allowed to do).

But it certainly isn't within the spirit of the licence, and for that reason, I agree it shouldn't be something they require of users.

Incidentally, there's no reason why they can't try to sell photos that have been licensed with CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-ND or even CC-BY. Sure, they're not as valuable, as any organisation buying them could have just used them for free under the CC licence, but a) they'd have to know about the licence and b) they may be willing to pay in order to not have to comply with the attribution conditions of the licence (which mandates linking to the CC licence legal text, as well as crediting the photographer).
Quadratic Evasion 8 years ago
Getty will be offering between 20% and 30% of the selling price to the photographer - this is way below stock industry standard that is closer to 50% and in a few cases 60%.
Douglas Thigpen 8 years ago
I think the whole stock image pulling from Flickr is a great idea. However, I too have wondered how they plan on acting on images that current are used under CC that have their attribution changed for inclusion in their catalog. It's a good quandary.
Francesco Gallarotti 8 years ago
I am not understanding the problem here... if one has all his or her pictures under CC that means that they made a choice. They enjoy the spirit of the CC community and they want to share their work. By doing so the opted out from future revenue off of those same images, I think. It's that simple, isn't it?

On the other hand, I always tend to associate CC and open source and I wonder if there has been the case of an open source project that was then converted into a commercial product. I am sure there are plenty of these case...

Quadratic Evasion: you have posted that message on pretty much every thread in this group. If I were an admin I would have already banned you...
loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by loupiote (Old Skool) pro (member) 8 years ago
I wonder if there has been the case of an open source project that was then converted into a commercial product. I am sure there are plenty of these case...

there are cases like that, but they are all illegal, i.e. breach of the original GPL license.

if i make a piece of software open source with a GPL license, no-one is allowed to take it, change the license and sell it as a closed-source product.
Francesco Gallarotti 8 years ago
Thought so... so it really makes no difference here with the CC vs Stock issue, right? I mean after all it's all about who you are andhow you feel about your work, isn't it? If you like to share and participate in the CC community you are opening yourself to an interesting world of collaboration, I think. But it also makes sense to know that you are also cutting yourself out from certain opportunities, doesn't it?
loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by loupiote (Old Skool) pro (member) 8 years ago
it's a similar situation with CC.

if i have a CC image, i cannot change it to All Rights Reserved. well, if I do that, there is no way i could enforce it, because people can claim they use it based on the previous CC license. unless i could prove that they had no access to the image while it was under CC, i cannot enforce the new copyright.
Rune T 8 years ago
>>> I am not understanding the problem here... if one has all his or her pictures under CC that means that they made a choice. They enjoy the spirit of the CC community and they want to share their work. By doing so the opted out from future revenue off of those same images, I think. It's that simple, isn't it?

Yep, that's how I see it too - it is a clear choice that the photographer has made that really can't be reversed.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
For the reasons already stated a licence shouldn't be changed. Flickr should make it impossible to change from CC to All Rights Reserved. If an image has been distributed under CC then some rights have not been reserved have they? They have been given away. They can't be miraculously reclaimed.

Who do you think Getty will blame when they find your so called All Rights Reserved image all over the internet and beyond?

Ian Murray
admin
Claudia@Getty Images PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Claudia@Getty Images (admin) 8 years ago
Hi: Just wanted to chime in to explain we would never expect anyone to revoke a license. We know that your image is being used with your permission by those who licensed it through CC, which is why we are placing CC images we choose in RF only. We couldn't place it in RM because rights management would not be possible. We came to this so as not to exclude inviting CC images.
Global Photographics 8 years ago
Correct me if I am wrong however Getties will need to credit you as the photographer of the image, they cannot entirely mark it as there own, they are simply the ageny working on your behalf.
Ive worked for a Photography Company which work in the same manner as Getties and even though they could sell the photos they legall had to credit myself as the photographer.
Maybe have a look at Getties website and see for yourself.
To be honest and knowing what Getties cover there are only going to look at things that cover there areas, unless they broaden there horizens
shanan Posted 8 years ago. Edited by shanan (member) 8 years ago
[I work at Flickr]

Flickr is absolutely 100% committed to encouraging the adoption of Creative Commons licenses by our members who want to use them.

In the case of the photos that Getty Images is inviting into their collection, the Getty folks determined that they're comfortable putting photos that are CC into their Royalty Free collection. One of the conditions that Getty asks members to accept in licensing these photos is that they change the current license on the site to all rights reserved.

[edited to add a link to the FAQ]
geographyphotos.com [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by geographyphotos.com (member) 8 years ago
shanan,

This would appear to go against the longer term interests of your contributors. If they go down the CC road without realising the consequences their decision cannot be reversed.

It would be safer to start out as All Rights Reserved until people had the information and experience to choose for themselves.

Flickr may well be 100% committed to CC but the role of Flickr has changed with this Getty arrangement.

I'd suggest that you should be 100% committed to the best interests of your members.

Automatically ruling an image out of ever being available as Rights Managed would not appear to be in the best interests of contributors.

Ian Murray
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
Claudia,

Even the All Rights Reserved images here are unwatermarked. Above them is an invitation to add the image to a blog. There is no control over downloads and even for non-commercial CC it is hard to see how it can be policed.

This must make it very hard for you to manage rights.

Isn't it time that Flickr started allowing watermarks and tightened up on theft and misuse - it seems to be rampant and largely unpoliced.

The lack of watermarking deters many people from joining Flickr.

Ian Murray
loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by loupiote (Old Skool) pro (member) 8 years ago
@idmurray

you can watermark images on flickr. all my public images on flickr are watermarked.

flickr does nor do it automatically for you, but you can do it.
Dom Dada PRO 8 years ago
@Claudia, I wish you'd reconsider the decision to allow CC'd images to RF only.

Wouldn't it be possible to assign a non-commercial CC licence (like by-nc-nd and by-sa) to an image and still handle all commerical uses via the Getty Rights-Managed licence?

A lot of the non-commercial uses fall under fair use anyway (which is allowed for copyrighted material as well) or would only rake in modest amounts of licencing fees – so your business would not be threatened by it (nor the chances of persuing those who violate both the CC and Getty licence).
geographyphotos.com [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by geographyphotos.com (member) 8 years ago
My understanding from searching the site and email response from Flickr today was that I should not watermark images and if I did they would most likely be removed.

Ian Murray
loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by loupiote (Old Skool) pro (member) 8 years ago
of course, once you submit the original to getty-image (if they contacted you), then you should not have a watermark in the original.

but i doubt getty-images will not consider public photos on flickr just because they have watermark. i would never put a public photo on the web without a watermark.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
I meant that the images would be removed for breaking Flickr rules,

I's just crop your watermark off the bottom of your pics if I wanted to steal them!

Ian Murray
Brenda Anderson PRO 8 years ago
idmurray wrote
I meant that the images would be removed for breaking Flickr rules,
Right. Flickr has said that you aren't allowed to add a watermark to your images of a URL that leads to a commercial website... despite the fact that some people seem to get away with doing that.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
A commercial site?

I am a stock photographer= so that is commercial? The rules say that Flickr is just for photo sharing not selling etc.

I wanted to put my web site address across my pics in very small lettering.

www.geographyphotos,com

Not allowed?

If Flickr is to be a recruitment pool for Getty stockshooters will want to give it a try.

Ian Murray
Brenda Anderson PRO 8 years ago
idmurray wrote
I wanted to put my web site address across my pics in very small lettering.
As you've already been in contact with Flickr support by email (as you mentioned above), then your best bet is to continue the correspondence with them and ask them specifically about your proposed watermark. Only Flickr staff can tell you for sure, and they won't discuss it in a group such as this.
Fort Photo PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Fort Photo (member) 8 years ago
I do know that if I were to use any CC licensed image with all the hub bub on here and elsewhere lately I would definitely use this service:

s1.imagestamper.com/login.jsp

It creates a time stamp proving the photo was obtained under a specific CC license. From their site:

"ImageStamper is a free tool for keeping dated, independently verified copies of license conditions associated with creative commons images. You can use it to safeguard your use of free images from license changes, or to prove you are the original image creator."

Food for thought. I know the CC folks themselves have used this tool for their presentations.

Edit: But who is to say how reliable this tool is. I just checked some photos on it and received invalid URL errors and more for many that should have worked. Hrmmm....
dotben 8 years ago
@Shanan [of Flickr] wrote:

In the case of the photos that Getty Images is inviting into their collection, the Getty folks determined that they're comfortable putting photos that are CC into their Royalty Free collection. One of the conditions that Getty asks members to accept in licensing these photos is that they change the current license on the site to all rights reserved.


Hmmm I feel you've kind of 'explained the process' back to us rather than explained the reason for the process - which the question in my original post

Flickr is absolutely 100% committed to encouraging the adoption of Creative Commons licenses by our members who want to use them.


It's not my intention to be snarky, but dude: I'm not sure how allowing a program to take place on Flickr that forces people who participate with CC photos to move their photos back to full copyright is being **100%** committed to encouraging the adoption of Creative Commons licenses.

It's good marketing speak, but not backed up by the policies - at least in this instance.
admin
Tom W at Getty Images 8 years ago
Watermarks -- I'm not sure about Flickr's specific rules about what can or can't be in the watermarks, but unless it's so big it practically obscures the image it wouldn't keep a Getty Images editor from selecting it.
Then of course, as loupiote very correctly said, once you upload the higher-res image to Getty to go into the collection for sale, that should not be watermarked.
Michael Kalus PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Michael Kalus (member) 8 years ago
I am a bit confused about this as well.

I can understand that Getty wants the commercial rights to the photos, but that does not preclude the use of a CC license. My photos are clearly licensed for non-commerical use via CC, that does not mean I cannot sell the same photo for commercial use.

I specifically selected this kind of license because I don't want to have to fight with some blog owner over "licensing fees" but still didn't want to close the door on selling a license to a commercial entity if they want to use it.

So why is Getty different?

As for the question about the Opensource as a commercial product: It is not illegal to sell a commercial product based on the GPL, the GPL only requires that the SOURCE Code is made available for free. Depending on how I make use of the GPL licensed code whatever expansion I wrote can be covered by my own license.
suephotos.smugmug.com 8 years ago
I understand why CC licensed images cannot be sold as RM (Rights Managed), even if the photographer opts to change the CC images to ARR (all-rights-reserved).

I don't understand why, for RF, a CC image needs to be changed to ARR. If I understand correctly, RF (Royalty Free) licenses imply non-exclusivity, so one ought to be able to have CC content that remains CC content, and also sell that content to whomever one chooses. The CC just means that non-commercial users do not need to ask permission or pay for non-commercial use.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by geographyphotos.com (member) 8 years ago
The thing about watermarks sums up the culture clash going on at Flickr quite nicely. And I hope I am not overstaying my welcome as a guest here.

The CC culture has been very much about sharing and even a sort of anti- commercial 'everything should be free on the web' attitude.

CC people want large unwatermarked images up on Flickr to share around with whovever wants to use them ( within very broad limits).. It's cool to share for free and for the sheer joy of celebrating photography to all..

To only upload a low res image and then watermark it is kind of ugly, cheap, mean spirited in CC culure.

In one way I'm quite pleased that Getty are making the Flickr community aware that images have value. It might help them deal with those freeloaders who approach for free/cheap pics pleading no budget - hey, they can pay the printers, the staff, the office rent, but apparently not the photographer! It'll make everyone more savvy.

On the other hand those like me who want to control the value of our images by managing who has the right to use them, in what ways, and for how long have not been able to be part of the CC/Flickr culture.

I suspect that if and when Flickr becomes firmly established as a feeder into the mighty Getty Images it will be a more attractive proposition to many others.

How Flickr evolves or doesn't in response to these tensions will be interesting to observe. I'd even be part of it if I were allowed to watermark!

Best wishes to all,

Ian Murray
Jef Poskanzer PRO 8 years ago
I believe it should be acceptable to Getty for the flickr license to be CC Non-Commercial. Requiring All Rights Reserved does not make sense and makes Getty look, well, greedy.

I also think flickr should get around to finishing the permissions change that lets us upload an original-size image but allow access to only the smaller versions. They made the necessary database change over a year ago but never followed through and implemented the permissions change that the database change now allows.

If Getty had exclusive access to the original size image, they could reconsider the RM issue, and everybody wins.
Dom Dada PRO 8 years ago
@idmurray, I am not sure if your crusade for watermarks belongs into this thread, or even this group's discussion. Try Flickr Ideas, for example – there your arguments will more likely be heard.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by geographyphotos.com (member) 8 years ago
My crusade??

Ah. I thought I was making well reasoned, helpful posts in relation to Getty and Flickr and the changes taking place

But I'll take the hint and leave you to it.

It does seem that in any case the rules are widely flouted in terms of watermarks and people using Flickr for commercial purposes.

Bye bye Dom

Ian Murray
admin
Hi there: some interesting discussion here about CC. I just want to clarify a few things..actually provide a little context because I think it's helpful.

We have a real responsibility to our customers when it comes to knowing where the images have been-and are being used. Rights clashes when they happen, are a bad thing. Without going into detail, they can erode trust, and be really costly for customers, Getty Images, and I've seen them be costly for photographers too in certain cases.

Our customers (major ad agencies, design firms, publishers and on and on...) trust that we have done our job to be sure our images are ready to go and safe to use for the project they license it for. CC is fantastic, but we still aren't at a place where we are confident in placing them in a model other than RF. And choosing them for RF, but then keeping them in CC would mean that the image is more widely available--maybe it is better for us to use that web space for an image that can only be obtained through us, that's a consideration too.

One step at a time--we built the tool, we've organized the internal staffing and work flow, we've created a structure, we're educating the community about preparing their images for licensing...there's is time to evaluate all of these things, right now we are focused on launching the collection. In the meantime this discussion is very valuable, and very much appreciated.
admin
dotnemn said: "I'm not sure how allowing a program to take place on Flickr that forces people who participate with CC photos to move their photos back to full copyright is being **100%** committed to encouraging the adoption of Creative Commons licenses."

Actually the Flickr folks I know would never allow anything to be forced on their members! Everyone has the option to opt-out of being invited using their Flickr profile, or even participate, but delete any invited images they would prefer to license through CC. We wanted to be sure to include CC images and created some rules around it that would still work for our business. But the choice is all yours and we wouldn't have it any other way.
Dom Dada PRO 8 years ago
Claudia, thanks for explaining your rationale behind chosing the royalty-free licencing model for CC images.
Jef Poskanzer PRO 8 years ago
Claudia@Getty Images says:
>And choosing them for RF, but then keeping them in CC would mean
>that the image is more widely available

Yeah, here's the thing. It *is* more widely available. The image *is* in the Creative Commons. As the title of this thread points out. You keep talking past this point.
admin
Claudia@Getty Images PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Claudia@Getty Images (admin) 8 years ago
Jef Poskanzer: Can you tell me what point I missed? Sorry I'm only on cup of coffee # 1 of 5.
admin
Claudia@Getty Images PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Claudia@Getty Images (admin) 8 years ago
OK -- even without more coffee, I may have figured out what I missed.

Is the confusion that we ask you to revert back to ARR if you submit the CC image to us? Sorry didn't mean to go past it, and I mentioned above that we know the images are being used if they are CC.

Yes we know that calling it ARR won't change the fact that it is out there, but it will minimize more uses, thereby preserving some sort of exclusivity -- and by that I mean, "is there anywhere else the customer can find this image?" That is meaningful to us because that little slot on our platform is valuable. The more "out there" the image is, the less valuable it is to us in relation to that little slot on our platform. We've made an exception to our exclusivity rule to be able to be inclusive about CC, to the extent we can from a business perspective. Our motives are not to be greedy but to be as inclusive as possible. And again, the choice is yours. Make sense? If it was something else...stay with me. I will leave no stone unturned.
Jef Poskanzer PRO 8 years ago
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable.

You can make us change the license bit on flickr to ARR but the actual legal license on the image remains Creative Commons.
heather 8 years ago
You can make us change the license bit on flickr to ARR but the actual legal license on the image remains Creative Commons.

IANAL, but my understanding is that if someone used the image while it was CC, they would continue to have the rights to use that photo.

If a photographer were to change the license to ARR, then there could be no further new and different instances of that photo being used under CC (though this might depend on what flavour of CC was used).

Or, upon reading what Claudia@Getty Images said, what she said!
ColleenM 8 years ago
I think part of the confusion here is that people are calling ARR a license. It isn't.

A license is permission for someone else to use a copyrighted image. The terms and conditions of that license are a binding legal agreement.

But the license goes with the *use* of the image. You don't give up your copyright when you license an image. So you can license the use of an image with the CC terms and conditions. One of those conditions is that that particular instance of the image cannot have its license revoked.

That does not mean that you have to continue to allow new licenses under the CC terms and conditions. You can quit offering new uses of the image under CC terms.

On Flickr, the ARR statement is (confusingly) called a license. But it's not. It's just a statement that you are licensing the uses one by one.

A CC-license is a true license, complete with terms and conditions. And you can make a statement on Flickr that that license is available.

But ARR is not a license. It's a statement of the copyright status of the image.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
ColleenM,

All Rights Reserved surely means exactly what it says.

If you then decide to un-reserve some rights then that is what happens.

The moment you allow a licence you have permitted a use of your image, Then you would manage the rights of that image for any other users.

Surely, this is what Rights Management means.

What do you think it means?

Regards,

Ian Murray
Mathieu Bertrand Struck Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Mathieu Bertrand Struck (member) 8 years ago
I´m a lawyer and this subject is on my field of study and work.

ColleenM is right.

A Creative Commons license is no more/no less than a standard contract between the author/licensor and the public that has access to the work through it. This standard contract regulates the uses of this work by the public (when people use the licensed work, they agree with the terms of the contract *license*).

A CC license is only perpetual for the duration of the applicable copyright (it means that when the work goes to the public domain, the license and any derivative license terminates) and it only affects people that had access to the work - even indirectly, in a "Share Alike license chain" for instance - when this license was valid.

It means that if the licensor revokes the CC license and associates the work back to an ARR statement, new uses of the primary work (the one that is available on the author´s homepage of stream) will be ruled by the classic ARR policy.

As I understand, this RM change will not affect secondary CC access to other copies of the work (available on the net, for instance) based on a CC previous access (for instance, a picture that was used on a blog under the CC license being used by a new blogger and so on). It´s easy to see that a CC to ARR change - even if perfectly legal and allowed to the author - can make a lot of mess, specially in "Share Alike chains".

Since the CC license demands the work to be linked to its original source/author, a useful hint is to always check if the license is still the same, when using a CC licensed work found on the net.

If someone reaches and uses your image with the new ARR policy, it will not matter if it had an older, more open (CC or another one) license. It´s a new use, based on a new policy.

BTW, the CC BY-NC 2.0 license text (linked in this thread) has a specific item on this subject:

7. Termination

b. Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
Mathieu Bertrand Struck Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Mathieu Bertrand Struck (member) 8 years ago
The CC Attibution and Non-Commercial clauses should be fully compatible with the Getty-Flickr database TOS.

But since CC licenses are, on the terms of each specific license, royalty-free distribution & exhibition, perhaps that´s precisely why Getty has established the "condition" (as shanan pointed it, above) to only accept these photos if the current license is reversed to all rights reserved.

I will continue to observe this thread, but if invited, I do not intend to upp (and convert to ARR) any of my CC photos to this Getty-Flickr database. With all this micro-power technology available, everyone can make some money with their work - even with ARR print versions of smaller-sized CC photos - directly and without a mainstream media tycoon such as Getty behind it (and still allowing free distribution, which is vital to the spread of knowledge).
alexei_322 PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by alexei_322 (member) 8 years ago
Hi Fort Photo,

Thanks for using ImageStamper, I'm the developer of the service. I think I might know why some of the Flickr images did not go through: you have to enter the full URL of the page that has the image embedded, e.g. www.flickr.com/photos/fortphoto/3205778548/
not the address of the actual JPEG file, that will not work because ImageStamper needs to see the entire page to record the license of the image. You can always leave public feedback for ImageStamper at imagestamper.uservoice.com/ where you can report bugs, suggest new features and vote on other people's suggestions.

Cheers!
Mathieu Bertrand Struck Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Mathieu Bertrand Struck (member) 8 years ago
alexei_322: great work! just tested it. useful tool in a copyright dispute.
alexei_322 PRO 8 years ago
Thanks! Please also remember that the photo has to be visible to someone who is not logged into Flickr for ImageStamper to be able to see it! :)
dotben 8 years ago
Thanks Mathieu Struck for your insight, and also re-referencing the 'Section 7: Termination' clause that I mentioned in my original post.

This really is a mess, isn't it?

I can see, based on your first post, that the author of a work can change/re-issue the license of a work from a point onwards but that the perpetual license then only applies for the existing cases where the given work is being used by a third party (CC-share-alike chains not withstanding). So that answers/addresses part of my point.

HOWEVER, it is still a mess. And that is partly, as you mentioned, because CC-NC is still compatible with what Getty are trying to do - but they are still enforcing the move back to ARR to maintain their 'air' of exclusivity.

And I'm sorry to be snarky but it is an 'air' of exclusivity because anyone who has licensed a work under CC AND shared it on a leading photo sharing website kinda is making the statement that they don't want it to be exclusive. I've worked within a news organization that has used Getty feeds and I'm familiar with their practice - but I think they need to move into 2009 and understand that there's a different culture going on than the stuffy picture wires world they are perpetuating.

Getty are a private enterprise and are free to do what they want, but it's a real clash of cultures to bring that kind of mentality into Flickr and I'm really surprised in many ways that Flickr have not anticipated (and mitigated) these issues better.
dotben 8 years ago
Oh and I also just wanted to say that I did feel this thread was hi-jacked a little by the water-marking thing - I think that's a different issue and deserves it's own thread for discussion. I certainly don't advocate the use of watermarking as it kinda defeats the intention of setting your images free for use under a CC or CC-NC license.
heather Posted 8 years ago. Edited by heather (member) 8 years ago
Getty are a private enterprise and are free to do what they want, but it's a real clash of cultures to bring that kind of mentality into Flickr and I'm really surprised in many ways that Flickr have not anticipated (and mitigated) these issues better.

Yes, if there were one culture on Flickr, but really, there's a great depth and breadth to our communities.

Our partnership with Getty Images will give those who are invited an opportunity to do more with their photos in this way, if they choose to participate.
dotben 8 years ago
Well, that's a bit of a spin-infused response, Heather. And as someone who performs 'community manager' type roles elsewhere on the internet I can't argue with that approach.

But I do feel there's a deeper and genuine issue here that is somewhat being glossed over here by 'on message' speak from Flickr/Yahoo and Getty folk.

It's a shame as I feel there's no opportunity here to engage in a proper discussion with Flickr and Getty folks about this and I/we are simply being snowed with corporate speak and to some extent miss-diversion (eg @Shanan who just repeated back the issue without addressing the points).

If there is a different way in which the community should be having a real conversation with Flickr/Getty about this please could you point me in the right direction?
Jef Poskanzer PRO 8 years ago
Yeah, the corpspeak is annoying.
Michael Kalus PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Michael Kalus (member) 8 years ago
Having followed up on the Getty postings I find it a bit funny how Getty is trying to justify the exclusion (or forced revocation of a CC license) based on the "value" that the product has.

The reality is very simple: If it's on the net someone will copy it. I have been able to grab "secure" Audio and Video Streams and even flickr photos without any problem. If it gets displayed it can be copied / used. The music industry has learned this in a very painful way over the years.

That is exactly why I put my stuff (anything I put online) u8nder the CC license excluding commerical use of the work. I know I have zero chance of tracking everything that goes on, by providing the blanket license for non-commercial use I safe myself a headache as I don't have to even TRY to police the internet.

I have not gotten an invite by Getty and unless they change their tune on this I won't. I'd be flattered that they wanted to include me, but the tone and reasoning would make me take a step back.

I understand why Getty is doing what they are doing. They are an IP peddler and their only reason to exist is to sell other peoples work and they have an interest in keeping as much control as possible, but for me that makes no sense and I am getting the feeling with all the competing stock services popping up Getty may end up having a rude awakening.

Kudos though for reaching out to the flickr community, shame though that you guys only went half the way, someone like Getty with a huge client list would be in the ideal position to "educate" their customers to the Internet and how it has changed a lot of things.

I'll keep monitoring this forum out of curiosity.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] Posted 8 years ago. Edited by geographyphotos.com (member) 8 years ago
For RM Getty normally ( in my experience) will not accept an image which is currently licensed. It will accept ones on which the licence has expired. I think what clients really like about Getty - apart from the images obviously - is that they can trust the product. Photographers don't tend to mess about with Getty. I'm rather worried here that standards seem to be altered to accommodate the situation of Creative Commons on Flickr.

As I understand it the selected images will be placed on Getty just the same as any other brand. Will buyers be aware of these compromises being made? I doubt it. Images from 3mp cameras with less than robust rights management and retrospective releases from friends and family? I can't help but wonder about the wisdom of all these departures from the norm. One person on these forums saw no problem in simultaneously selling images as micro RF and Getty RM - even though as I understand it selling via Flickr is against the terms and conditions. It seems a bit anarchic here - in a nice kind of way!

Yes, I do understand that in the end it is none of my business etc. Except that since I pay for the privilege of placing pics on Getty it is in part my business!

I do recognise the tremendous authentic and creative quality - the 'unstock' element - of images on Flickr and so hope very much that it all works out well.

Ian Murray
dotben 8 years ago
idmurray wrote:

Will buyers be aware of these compromises being made? I doubt it. Images from 3mp cameras with less than robust rights management and retrospective releases from friends and family?


Hmmm I think that's a bit unfair on the Flickr community. I would not call myself anything but an amateur photographer yet most of my photos are taken with my Canon 40D and various semi-pro level lenses. It's several thousands of $ worth of kit (although granted, it's as much down to the skill of the person using said kit).

But to call out "3mp cameras" is a bit OTT - Flickr attracts the more serious photographer - perhaps that's why a lot of us feel peeved about some of the way this Getty program has been worked out.
dotben 8 years ago
Well, no response from Heather or anyone else from Flickr (or Getty for that matter) to my points or those of others who've taken the time to reply here.

One can only assume that Flickr don't care or have nothing more to say on this matter other than the on message responses given.

And that nicely creates the scenario for me where where I either shut the f*** up or continue to push this and be made to look like a Troll.

Thanks Flickr, you really made my day.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
dotben

The 3mp minimum spec comes from Getty.

Ian Murray
jciv PRO 8 years ago
If a photo is CC, and accepted into Getty's collection, how would they protect it from copyright violations? Are they going to sue anyone they find who is using it? How do they know the difference between someone who downloaded it before the license was changed?
Brenda Anderson PRO 8 years ago
jciv wrote
How do they know the difference between someone who downloaded it before the license was changed?
I've raised this before. I'd really like to know this too.
Fort Photo PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Fort Photo (member) 8 years ago
Brenda Anderson wrote
jciv wrote
How do they know the difference between someone who downloaded it before the license was changed?
I've raised this before. I'd really like to know this too.


I've asked this very question and the response I got was, "wow, yeah that is an issue." I think this really could be quite the serious issue when Getty starts to go after unlicensed uses and an ugly one. I mean theoretically as long as the image was downloaded when the CC license was in effect the downloader could then post a CC use of that image years later after the image was changed to all rights reserved and still be covered under the previous CC license. I would also imagine anyone receiving an infringement letter from Getty for any image on the flickr collection could just claim they downloaded the image when it was CC in the past, so go away (maybe even if they didn't).

Which brings up another key question: how will Getty know if a currently all rights reserved image was previously licensed as CC? Does flickr or anyone track license changes (I don't see anyway to track it in my account page or stats)?
admin
Tom W at Getty Images 8 years ago
Hi Brenda and Fort --

We are only placing images that had formerly had CC licenses into RF, so we would not get into a situation where we had to try to guarantee a client exclusivity.

If we did question a use, if the user told us they had acquired it via CC in the past we would pretty much have to take their word for it. So sure, a user could lie about it but they'd have to be pretty imaginative to even think of doing that (because how would they know it ever was under CC?) Plus, if we were really super suspicious about it, we could always just check back with the photographer to see if it was ever offered under CC.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
Tom,

What about images that you are going to place as RM on Getty. Are you requiring that Flickr contributors inform you if the image was ever CC. As you know All Rights Reserved actually has no meaning except to assert ownership.

How can you offer any semblance of exclusivity when you cannot know the history of an image, who has it, and under what licence they obtained it.

On Flickr a CC licence can be changed to ARR in a mouse click and back again.

This seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Ian Murrau
admin
Tom W at Getty Images 8 years ago
Ian --

As stated in the FAQ :
There is a chance one of your Creative Commons-licensed photos may catch the eye of a perceptive Getty Images editor. You are welcome to upload these photos into the Flickr collection on Getty Images, but you are contractually obliged to reserve all rights to sale for your work sold via Getty Images. If you proceed with your submission, switching your license to All Rights Reserved (on Flickr) will happen automatically.


If a photographer were to then change the license on Flickr back to CC for an image that was being sold via Getty Images, he or she would be violating the contract. Also, as noted above, images that have in the past been offered under a CC license will only be offered as RF so we would not be offering a client exclusivity on those.
www.robertkneschke.de 8 years ago
It is possible to revoce a CC licence, however it includes some legal mumbojumbo. Here an analysis by Dan Heller how a rip-off scheme including CC-images works:
danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-fo...
Tom on Formosa PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Tom on Formosa (member) 8 years ago
Creative Commons is evil. Nobody remembers the Virgin Mobile Australia case?

See:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/24/tech/main3290986.shtml
freedomforip.org/2007/09/21/creative-commons-sued-by-texa...

As for example, this photo:
Molly holds court in the elevator by Daniel Morrison

Became this (totally legal) ad:
Virgin Mobile misappropriates likenesses by jgarber


So I'd say people who go with Getty should change their future photos or illustrations they upload to All rights reserved. Non Royality-free images have a bigger % pay off anyways, right?
Besides you can always provide a photo for free to someone when someone asks for it. Using CC actually limits your own rights to the photo! Suppose when someone really wants your photo or play around with it, he can ask...
This goes especially for photos were a model release "should" be necessary (as for the example above, imho).

I think CC is the most useful for some museums that upload here :-)
madnzany PRO 8 years ago
Robert,

Thank you for linking to Dan Heller's analysis. I'm not sure that what he says about revocation is fully correct, though. In the legal code for the CC BY 3.0 licence, (though applicable to all of the main CC licences,) it says:

8a. Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

8b. Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.


This means that, if you make a photo, and you place it under a CC licence which someone accepts, the moment they share that photo with a third-party, that third-party has the same rights to use the photo as the person you licensed it to does, even if you change the terms later.

It is, as far as I can tell, similar to other licences such as the GPL (part 6).

Also, in the CC licence, it says:

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

I don't think anyone would be able to put photos onto Getty if they were under a CC licence, if Getty wants exclusivity?

Mr Tang,

Well, I hope Getty have more sense than Virgin does. Getty potentially suing for copyright infringement anyone who may have received photos under a CC licence, when Getty doesn't even hold the copyright to the photos, would be a real mess! That would drag the photographer and Flickr into a legal quagmire if there were a countersuit.
geographyphotos.com [deleted] 8 years ago
Tom W at Getty Images,

All Rights Reserved going to Getty as RM offers absolutely no assurance that Rights have been Managed or can be managed. An image under ARR today could have been CC yesterday.

I assume that either:

1) you will need assurances from the Flickr photographer over each image that is going on as RM
2) you will inform the Getty client to warn them over possible risks

Actually, I think you will do neither.

It seems that you want to give the impression of rights management without the reality.

Okay, free up Getty for everyone else if this is the way the rules are now.

Ian Murray
Felizberto - Lemmi PRO 4 years ago
Hello, I read almost all posts but:
my photos are all under CC license with non-commercial attribution and many of theme are used on the Web. I want this! But I also want to sell a photo if is used for commercial use. As @Claudia@Getty Images said, a CC photo is more widely available, exactly for the purpose that is released: for share it. This is the CC scope. The target of Getty is this kind of photo: accessible from Flickr that it isn't a professional Photographer Stock (even if there are many Prof. Photog.) and for this I think that the Getty customers should come to terms and accept that the image can be under CC w/ NC use, for all free uses that respects this CC license, but licensed for the commercial use to the customer and the Getty should manage only the commercial use. Is this impossible?
There are many advantages for Getty and Getty's customer using the Flickr community and for this they should accept the community rules represented by the CC license. For ARR images no problem, but for the CC photos with NC use I think that can be a solution to evaluate.
Emmanuel
Groups Beta