Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Using a Yahoo username and password to sign in to Flickr
Latest: 88 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Update on the new photo experience
Latest: 2 hours ago
[Official Thread] Detailed explanation of new features in Flickr 3.0 apps
Latest: 2 hours ago
[Official Thread] Take a survey to help us improve Flickr groups
Latest: 7 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using Flickr over a secure (SSL) connection
Latest: 2 days ago
[Official Thread] Providing feedback on Flickr 3.0 for iOS and Android
Latest: 6 days ago

 

Current Discussion

email account
Latest: 6 minutes ago
Autosync failed to upload a lot of photos!
Latest: 9 minutes ago
Invites
Latest: 12 minutes ago
What`s wrong with Explore
Latest: 13 minutes ago
Why are views down 80% today (Thursday) ???
Latest: 14 minutes ago
[bug?] Oops! An issue occured while loading. Please refresh the page
Latest: 22 minutes ago
Oops! An issue occured (SIC) while loading. Please refresh the page.
Latest: 23 minutes ago
What happened to Sets ?
Latest: 50 minutes ago
Yahoo-Flickr App for Ipad
Latest: 58 minutes ago
New items not showing
Latest: 61 minutes ago
Created a Yahoo account and can't find my old account
Latest: 63 minutes ago
Uploader not working
Latest: 65 minutes ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

HELP: Somebody's using MY pictures in HIS Photostream!!!

SMeaLLuM says:

There is this user Montefuser that has posted 2 of my pics in his photostream without my consent:

flickr.com/photos/montefuser/14078971/

flickr.com/photos/montefuser/14078970/

and i think he is using other's users photos as well. Could this be a bug or is he appropiating these pics consciously?

Thanks for any help on this,
SMeaLLuM

BTW: I have already sent him a message asking him to remove my pics inmediately.
Posted at 8:09PM, 15 May 2005 PDT ( permalink )

view photos

*omnia* says:

that's interesting. How did you find out he had used your photos? (sorry I can't help with your issue - just wondering how you managed to locate this misuse of your images)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Collin Grady says:

If he doesn't remove them, use the Help by Email section of the FAQ.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SMeaLLuM says:

he left a comment on another picture of mine, so i went to check on him, the usual thing... and browsing through his pictures i saw this 2 pictures of mine. Thanks Collin i will use that help by email. Didn't know about it ;-)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

He appears to be assembling a gallery of his favorite photos. At least two of them (this and this) have been floating around the Web for quite some time--I know this because I have copies of them myself.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Stewart says:

Thanks SmeaLLuM - we're looking into it and will explain to Montefuser how the favorites feature works :)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Cyron says:

Given that the originals are CC licensed, Montefuser is actually allowed to host them in his stream, providing he attributes them to the original author is he not?
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

is he not?

he's not.

that's about the only problem here, given the CC license.

well, other than the TOS .. but that's between flickr and he.

he's said that he's willing to add attribution, but only after he was caught, and he's being a little bit of a jerk about it.

assuming he does add the attribution, it stops being a copyright issue and starts being a TOS issue. unless someone is going to sue him for damages during the period the attribution wasn't there.

it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SMeaLLuM says:

I consciously chose to allow anybody to use my pics in blogs, etc..as long as there would mention where the picture came from(through the CC license). I wish that the only way of doing that for blog admins would be to link directly to the Flickr location of my pic. That way, the person reading the blog could allways have a way of seeing a little bit more of my work should they feel the curiosity of doing so.

But i definetely don't want any of my pictures being shown in another Flickr's user photostream NOT EVEN giving credit(unless my permission is asked and given beforehand) and i think the TOS is on my side on that.

Hopefully i won't need to explain my reasons since i feel that many other users will feel similar ;-)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

lina35mmcamera says:

wow, this is interesting cause I don't know how to work the CC license and all I do is post them...my Portraits...and if this is happening maybe I should just delete all my Portaits...but then it would be to late, then here you are and you spotted your work, and here I am having second thoughts..I don't even know how to work some of these things that are in the Help...Flickr...hopefully it isn't so! Gosh ,,, let us all know ....thanks...
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

lina35mmcamera says:

I think that guy just loves other peoples work...that portrait is great, and thanks for sharing.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Cyron says:

he's not.

How do you figure that? This license the original poster has the images under is Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, which means someone is free to copy, distribute and display the work providing they do not alter the image or use it for commercial purposes.

As far as I can see, putting the image in his own stream would fall under "copy" and "display" and thus would be ok (assuming he were to add attribution)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SMeaLLuM says:

He has finally removed my 2 pictures after, as Striatic said, being a little bit of a jerk about it(he sent me a couple of rude emails, insulting me, but then again, it's just words).

I am very interested in knowing what is Flickr Staff position on this issue(nothing personal with this user just interest in it for the future)or maybe clarification on weather somebody is allowed to do this or not from Flickr perspective.

Thanks all for the input ;-)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

T a k says:

Cyron, I think that's exactly what striatic meant when he said "he's not:" that the person in question is not attributing the photos to the author.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

George says:

SMeaLLuM
I am very interested in knowing what is Flickr Staff position on this issue

The practice of snagging photos from other people's stream and putting them in your own is not encouraged.

In the past, we have discovered that people tend to do this because they aren't sure of the process or etiquette around here... and more often than not, a simple polite request from you to remove the offending copies is enough.

If the person does not respond to this, then we encourage you to contact Flickr staff via the help system and we'll facilitate the process.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Stewart says:

Putting someone else's photos in your stream causes them to be displayed in lots of places where the only attribution is to you -- therefore, CC licensing is a red herring.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SMeaLLuM says:

Thanks George, i fully understand. However i am not sure what Stewart is trying to say. Maybe it's a language thing(english not my native tongue).

Stewart: i don't see how putting other user's pictures in your own stream displays them in lots of places. That depends on what you do afterwards with them, right? So as you can imagine, i didn't understand what you said that the CC licensing is something to divert attention from the main issue(red herring?).

Maybe any native english speaker can clarify me?

Thanks :-)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

Cyron, I think that's exactly what striatic meant when he said "he's not:" that the person in question is not attributing the photos to the author.

i should have said "but he's not"

Thanks George, i fully understand. However i am not sure what Stewart is trying to say. Maybe it's a language thing(english not my native tongue).

my take is that flickr automatically assumes that the photo was taken by the person who uploaded it, it is displayed in flickr in places like the tag pages and in everyone's photos without any attribution to the original photographer.

so when uploading a photo to flickr, you cannot comply with the terms of any CC license.

here's a question though, and it's something that actually happened:

let's say that i upload a photo to flickr and then someone else does a photo collage based on it and uploads it, adding my attribution in the photo description.

following that logic let's look at this photo montage thingy:

flickr.com/photos/duchamp/7850684/

created and uploaded by duchamp without my permission based on my CC works

even with attribution in the photo description this would violate my license, i think.

now, in that case it is fine because i liked the result. but assuming that i didn't, would i be within my rights to ask flickr to yank the photo simply because my name isn't under every single thumbnail on flickr?

i honestly have no clue.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

caterina says:

What Stewart was getting at, (I think) is that when you, say, blog that person's photo from your photostream it will automagically say "Uploaded by imagethief" or whatever that person's name is.

Generally when people do this it is because they love the photo and don't get "favoriting" something, as George pointed out above.

One problem with the CC licenses is there is no "NO ATTRIBUTION REQUIRED" option. There used to be, but it was discontinued for reasons not completely apparent to me. I mean, you should be able to give your work to the world without requiring people to have some kind of attribution, which, given all kinds of digital display types, can often be really difficult.

OK, I'm done ranting now.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"Uploaded by imagethief"

i wonder if there is any difference in terms of attribution between "uploaded by imagethief" and "photograph by imagethief"

I mean, you should be able to give your work to the world without requiring people to have some kind of attribution, which, given all kinds of digital display types, can often be really difficult.

the problem is that then there is no way to trace back the "lineage" of the license to the original source so that someone can figure out whether the terms of the license are legit.

and if there isn't a mechanism for validating the license, then the license isn't worth much.

now, creative commons does offer a "public domain" deed that doesn't require attribution .. since it doesn't have any terms that might need to be validated, and inside the license it mentions that due diligence was applied to make sure the work was actually public domain before applying the license.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

so anyway, if you just want to "give your work away" without requiring attribution you can use the PD declaration .. but not on flickr.

using the PD deed on flickr is complicated because flickr automatically adds a copyright symbol and an "all rights reserved" notice on the photo page, even if you put a link to the PD deed in the description.

this also complicates the use of other non CC licensing schemes, like that one they use for wikipedia .. and there's some GNU scheme .. anyway, there are other licenses other than CC out there that become more complicated to use on flickr because of the default "all rights reserved" notice {which is actually redundant}

so flickr could get around this maybe by adding support for the PD declaration, or simply by allowing an "other" setting for licencing that would clear the copyright symbol and let someone put a different license in the description.

here is a link to the CC deed for public domain: creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Stewart says:

I think you explained what I was trying to say earlier - if you are uploading someone else's photo then the description field is probably not sufficient.

In the case of a derivative work (like the collage) the description probably is sufficient since the (derivative) work really was created by the person it appears to be.

The requirements for attributing in the case of whole works and derivative works differ, as far as I understand it.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Stewart says:

Oh - and the reasons we don't have a PD option:

(i) Unlike CC licenses, you can't take PD back - once it is done, it is done. I spec'd out a three stage confirmation (including typing out that you understand what it means) but this was seemed like too much and we didn't want the support hassle. People are free to use the description field to specify their PD desires.

(ii) There are liabilities that we don't want to take on if we allow people to claim something is public domain without actual checking the chain of title - if they don't own it in the first place, we can get in trouble. (This is also true of CC images, but at least that can be changed after the fact and there is less of a chance of the image just "escaping" in the wild.)
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

There are liabilities that we don't want to take on if we allow people to claim something is public domain without actual checking the chain of title - if they don't own it in the first place, we can get in trouble.

would you still be liable if you provided an "other" option that removed the copyright symbol, and just let people put what they wanted in the photo description like they might on their own personal site?
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

here is the part that your talking aboutm where attribution differs. it seems to mean that that you cannot upload a derivitive work to flickr under CC at all.

"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."

so if you view the name under the photo to be an authorship credit, then it is displayed much more prominently than anything in the photo description.

if you don't view the name under the thumbnail to be an atuthorship credit but instead an "uploading credit", then any CC photo should be able to be uploaded to flickr without breaking the license. the terminology throughout flickr reinforces that the uploader's name is not an authorship credit.

ie. "photos FROM contacts" instead of "photos BY contacts" .. "uploaded by imagethief" instead of "photographed by imagethief"

at least that's how i read it.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

My take is that we can relax about uploading works derived/collected from images made available under the CC license that we're talking about, at least if the original author is domiciled in Canada, the U.S., the U.K. or other nations influenced by English jurisprudence. Here's why.

First off, the existing hard-coded attributions accurately describe what is going on. The main page for a photo says that the image was "Uploaded by" the account-holder (let's call him X). The thumbnails say "From" X, not "By" or "Created by." Neither is, in itself, an authorship credit. The most that they assert is that "X uploaded this thing."

For purposes of the CC license, that's all we need to legitimize uploads of derivative/collective works to Flickr, as long as the description field is used for attributions. The CC license at issue requires that:

...in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.

Since there is no other authorship credit on the page, we're cool.

We're also given a certain amount of flexibility in the format of the attribution by the CC license:

You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying [certain specified information]....Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner....

In English jurisprudence, from which the Canadian, U.S. and some other systems descend, "reasonable" is a well-known term. To really simplify, it tells the judge, "Work this out on a case-by-case basis using your discretion and common sense, subject to the body of relevant legal precedent." The judge's guide is not what X thinks is reasonable, it's what a theoretical reasonable person would do given the various technological constraints involved. So, it isn't subjective. However, in its inherent case-by-case flexibility it's very different from "Somewhere there's a rigid formula that these Flickr people must follow; and you, judge, must apply it." I would venture to say that Flickr's description field is a reasonable means of displaying the required information.

The upshot is that, since it's displayed with the image, and it says what CC tells X to say, and Flickr's hard-coded text doesn't contradict it, X has done his job, and he can go back to taking pictures.

EDIT: I'm unsure what would happen if somebody sued under this license in a non-common-law judicial system. And that would be any licensor who lives in a country with such a system. The licensor isn't likely to travel abroad to enforce his rights, unless he's really losing money--and that's unlikely for anyone who has decided to use a CC license in the first place. He'll sue locally, and the local court's jurisdiction would have a good shot at being recognized by the alleged violator's country.

If I had been the attorney who drafted the license, I would have incorporated the body of law that he was invoking with the term "reasonable" by adding a choice-of-law clause: "The parties agree that this license shall be interpreted according to the laws of [insert state/province/country here]."
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Stewart says:

I think that CC licenses are really all tied to countries and we only offer the US versions :\

(There are 'versions' of the proper license listed on their site.)

But thanks for the diggin' Matt and the thought Stri. I think we will make it a Flickr TOS addition that, notwithstanding CC licensing, you can't upload other people photos that are already on Flickr since it is a waste of bandwidth and drive space.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

I think we will make it a Flickr TOS addition that, notwithstanding CC licensing, you can't upload other people photos that are already on Flickr since it is a waste of bandwidth and drive space.

sounds like a plan, stan.

the also good because then people could upload CC photos that aren't already on flickr to flickr, which is good because the intent of many people using CC is to spread their work far and wide.

this could then be achieved without the redundancy of multiple photos on flickr, which really doesn't benefit anyone.

so i could go looking for CC photos on the web and then post them here under the terms of the license.

if that's a problem for flickr, then you could always mandate in the TOS that people only upload photos that they have some authorship over.

the thing is that the TOS is currently a little vague on uploading other people's photo. as it stands, there is nothing on flickr that would discourage me from building a collection of CC content here {content not already on flickr} .. while i'm pretty sure that this isn't flickr's raison d'etre.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

Stewart, that TOS addition sounds good to me.

EDIT: If there's a way to support the CC licenses that are optimized for the rest of the planet by local legal scholars, that might be a good idea. They're designed to have similar effects, but go through different gyrations suited to each legal system. The CC site describes it as "porting" the license to each country, which strikes me as an apt analogy. I don't know what that would require on Flickr's end, though.

At a minimum, since you're a Canadian subsidiary of Yahoo, supporting Canada's CC license seems like it would be a kosher thing to do.

THE EDIT RELOADED: Since Flickr is not a free-standing subsidiary, and as of this writing has nearly finished moving to the U.S., that "Canadian kosher" thing is moot. But I still think that supporting the rest of the world's legal systems via CC is important. Otherwise, Flickr's CC implementation doesn't work reliably outside the U.S. Any other Flickr feature that was unreliable for 95% of the world's population would be ripped up and fixed.
Posted 109 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

curlsdiva says:

Caterina says 'One problem with the CC licenses is there is no "NO ATTRIBUTION REQUIRED" option. There used to be, but it was discontinued for reasons not completely apparent to me. I mean, you should be able to give your work to the world without requiring people to have some kind of attribution, which, given all kinds of digital display types, can often be really difficult.'

Caterina, boy I couldn't agree more... in fact I'd like to shout it in capitals if it weren't considered rude!

Must I then place an individual note on every photo in my photostream that says
"I require NO attribution, there are NO restrictions on this photo which I wish to SHARE yes you read that right SHARE"?
Or is there a way to implant this description automatically on all my photos?

Sharing used to be a thing we human beings did before we got our knickers in a twist about litigation and before we saw bogeymen on every corner.

I appreciate what Stewart says about the administration and legal implications for Flickr on this, but how about thinking flexibly here - isn't it as important to respect the rights of those who want to share their work freely with the world as it is to respect the rights of those who wish to protect their work more rigorously?

Apologies for the longwinded rant - it's something I feel strongly about.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Violentz says:

A Flickr contact notified me that someone had one of my photographs in their Flickr Photostream. I checked it out..and sure enough, my photo was being used by someone else. I don't use CC, and all my images are pre-set so they can't be downloaded. I wrote to the Flickr member who has my image in the stream and kindly asked him to remove it and that he wasn't allowed to use my images in his own photostream, but he only responded with a smile face, and never removed the image. I believe he lives in Brazil, and perhaps there is a language barrior here and he didn't understand my request for him to remove the image and why. Anyway...I contacted Flickr through the "Help" link and explained the situation and attached the links, but they never got back to me. This was all last Friday. How do I proceed now in getting this person to stop using my work?

The link to my image on HIS stream is...

www.flickr.com/photos/rafaelis/17598960/

The link to my original photo on MY stream is....

www.flickr.com/photos/violentz/1071667/in/set-294946/


No attribution was given to me, not that that would matter, as I don't want my photos in other people's Flickr accounts. He also is allowing downloads of my image, where I do not.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

curlsdiva says:

Although I have every sympathy for SMealLum and Violentz at seeing their photos appear with someone else's name on them, could I possibly throw this thought in?

If we don't want our photos (especially of our loved ones, even more especially of children) to be 'misused', don't put them on the internet - period. And if what happens to our photos matters a great deal to us because of professional reputation and so on, why post on a photo sharing site, why not show the work on a private website?

Surely we're all sophisticated enough these days to realise that the internet, wonderful though it is, can also be a big bad world where we have, in reality, little control over what happens to material we voluntarily place there.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Collin Grady says:

Have some patience, Violentz. You used Help by Email right as they're all leaving for the weekend, and you expect instant response?
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Violentz says:

Curlsdiva....your logic makes no sense in my particular situation. I know all the risks of photos being stolen on the internet, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate such blatant copyright infringement when I catch the person. Flickr provides me the option of NOT allowing downloads of my images. If someone chooses to violate that, that's one thing, but to blatantly post my work on the very website they stole it from when I have full copyright protection is not something I should just chock up to the dangers of posting any images of mine on Flickr. Flickr has rules against this and I just wish to excercise them to protect my own images when I can. I'm very aware that anyone can take any image of mine from Flickr and that is the risk I chose to take when posting on the net, but it isn't a blank invitation for someone to do so, as it would be if I just ignored my image being used by someone else on their own photostream when they shouldn't be.
What you are saying Curlsdiva, at least to me, is like telling someone "if you don't want your credit card number to be used by someone else illegally...don't use your credit cards".

Collin....no, I do not expect an immediate response, but saw this thread at the top of the Help section and wished to asked about it while it was there. I have no idea how long it takes for them to respond, though my past "Help" needs did get an immediate response in a day, so that is what I was going on here.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sermontef says:

What drama queens, this is so blown out of proportion... you all fail to realize that we have machines that can make almost infinite numbers of copies of data no matter what the little tag says. There will always be a way around the system. Be thankful that people appreciate your art, or critique it, that they even use it- what does it bother you? I do not want to live in a more regulated world than this is, where quotes, pictures, moves (dances), looks, EVERYTHING can and will be protected. Why? Because it harms who we are, it limits us, growth. So stop crying over a picture, it's sitting in some network being useless anyway. (This is not a place to make money anyhow.)

Much of the data here is just nonsense and just dull so I will post some richer information that will hopefully make you think and hopefully change your mind.

It is the nature of digital technologies that every use produces a copy. Thus, it is the nature of a copyright regime like the United States’, designed to regulate copies, that every use in the digital world produces a copyright question: Has this use been licensed? Is it permitted? And if not permitted, is it “fair”? Thus reading a book in analog space may be an unregulated act. But reading an e-book is a licensed act, because reading and e-book produces a copy. Lending a book in analog space is an unregulated act. But lending an e-book is presumptively regulated. Selling a book in analog space is an unregulated act. Selling an e-book is not. The default in the analog world was freedom; the default in the digital world is regulation.

Not only is the reach of the law dramatically larger because copyright regulates all uses rather than just some. The U.S. congress self-consciously made one of these two big changes, but it didn’t know how far-reaching its legislation would be, since it didn’t foresee the eventual universality of machines that copy.

Digital technologies were designed to enable perfect copies; they were not designed to enable control over these copies. The perfection and freedom of digital technology, including the Internet, have thus led to a Roman feast of copyright infringement. Digital tools make it simple to share data with you 10,000 best friends. The United States is a nation of drivers who stop at red lights- even deserted red lights, in the middle of the night- but its citizens didn’t even hiccup when slurping down peer-shared creative content, copyright notwithstanding. Whatever the law says, actions speak louder than words.

Remixing uses the fruits of someone else’s creativity. There’s no guarantee that it does any favors to the work that is remixed. There’s no requirement that it treat the work respectfully or kindly. The freedom to remix is a freedom to ridicule or respect. Fairness is not the measure. Freedom is.

It is almost impossible to imagine a culture thriving if its people are not free to engage in this kind of practice. Remixing is how culture gets made. The acts of reading, or criticizing, or praising, or condemning bits of culture are how we create things. This is true whether the culture is commercial or not: you cannot limit remixing to things in the public domain. In our tradition we have been free to remix, whether the stuff remixed is copyrighted or not.

MIT_Technology_Review.June_cover05

My Final Take:
When we repeat something we hear from someone else are we not repeating an exact copy of someone else’s work? When we write, say something somebody else said, are we not violating copyright laws? Must the copy be in the physical form? Because a song is not physical they are just notes put together in tempo. Too bad they didn’t have copyright laws in the time of Jesus because those philosophers would be filthy rich by now- and I bet if they were used religion would not come to be what it has become today. Once everything becomes copyright we will be charged to take photos of buildings, and other art forms, after all they're copies. Stop looking at the technicality of the problem, just realize that it is innevitable.

We are all pirates in more ways than we can even think, so those of you who criticize pirates are major hypocrites. What is there to gain and what is the to lose if someone uses your photo? Put it in a balance. There are actually events going on more important worth the energy than this, because no matter what people are going to share pictures as they do all sorts of data, and trying to put a cap will only add more pressure.


Live and let live. This is not worth fighting for, find a better cause.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

*Seuss* says:

Maybe you never saw this line on the homepage montefuser...

(my emphasis added)

The best way to store, search, sort and share your photos.

It is perfectly sensible for people to expect other flickr members to follow this. Instead of trying to justify being a pirate, as you put it, why not go out and take a picture?
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

robus says:

What you are saying Curlsdiva, at least to me, is like telling someone "if you don't want your credit card number to be used by someone else illegally...don't use your credit cards".

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. In credit card terms I think Curlsdiva was saying "if you don't want your credit card to be used illegally, don't put it in a public place (ie, the internet) where anybody can copy it, irrespective of warnings copying may carry (ie, a license that doesn't prevent copy by some technical means [1])".

It's a bummer that someone's taken your image and put it in their photostream, but the only way to avoid this is to not place a digital version of the file, reproducible bit-for-bit, on a publicly-accessable network in the first place. You can't have your cake (showing the photo to the world) and eat it (disallowing people to copy your photo, which they've done already by viewing it).

[1] and the flickr "don't allow downloads" doesn't count as a technical means to prevent copying, as flickr themselves state:

By "discourage" we do mean simply "discourage". Please understand that if a photo can be viewed in a web browser, it can be saved. The transparent image overlaid on the photo will not keep your images safe from theft, and is intended only as a slight hindrance to downloading.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

curlsdiva says:

robus - exactly right - every word. On my own stuff, I put this: "Let's get real: if you use any of my work (for good or bad) you're not killing my children, evicting me from my home or invading a defenceless country. Anything other than that I can deal with..."

It's just about perspective and common sense. I don't upload ANYTHING that I would be upset about losing.

Violentz, you say you chose to take the risks. Surely if you make a choice to take a risk, you must also accept the consequences whichever way the risk goes for you: good or bad.

We all choose to use a free service which enables us to have a platform for our photos. None of us need to do that - nobody's putting a gun to our heads. We WANT to do it. It's a great opportunity - we're damn lucky actually.

If making that choice of our own free will results in a situation that we're not happy with, then that's how life is sometimes.
Posted 108 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

@Montefuser, because (for whatever reason) you specifically called my attention to your post, I'll comment on it:

You are incorrect when you claim:

When we repeat something we hear from someone else are we not repeating an exact copy of someone else’s work? When we write, say something somebody else said, are we not violating copyright laws? Must the copy be in the physical form? Because a song is not physical they are just notes put together in tempo.
In fact, copyright law in the U.S. (which is your chosen focus) allows for the use of all of these things, even if they're copyrighted. It allows for the "remixing" which you rightly say is the basis of any vibrant culture. Of course, you can verbally say whatever you want (if you're not charging for admission) without regard to copyright. Writers can quote and use ideas from other authors; musicians can sample, and even do near-clones, of other musicians' work. The only condition for these last two is that you attribute what you copy. A writer who copies an entire work without attribution is a plagarist; a musician who does so is a thief.

Attribution was the entire point of SMeaLLuM, this thread's originator. You didn't attribute his work; you just ripped it off and passed it off (implicitly or otherwise) as your own. That puts you in precisely the same position as a plagarist or a musician who's stealing another's book. Crying "Copyright law is inherently injust because I should be able to sample his work!" ignores the fact that you indeed could have sampled, but you chose to take the whole enchilada.


Since that part of your argument fails, you're left with your protest against the copyrighting of digital media. It rests on an attempt to distinguish between the nature and consequences of digital and analog copyright:
It is the nature of digital technologies that every use produces a copy. Thus, it is the nature of a copyright regime like the United States’, designed to regulate copies, that every use in the digital world produces a copyright question: Has this use been licensed? Is it permitted? And if not permitted, is it “fair”? Thus reading a book in analog space may be an unregulated act. But reading an e-book is a licensed act, because reading and e-book produces a copy. Lending a book in analog space is an unregulated act. But lending an e-book is presumptively regulated. Selling a book in analog space is an unregulated act. Selling an e-book is not. The default in the analog world was freedom; the default in the digital world is regulation.
This distinction is not valid--indeed, if you think about it, it's the exact opposite of the real distinction. The expense and complexity of analog production concentrated it in the hands of relatively few entities, which could be easily regulated. Was a book ripped off? Somebody had to print and distribute it, and that somebody could be tracked down. Ditto for a record. Ditto for a movie. The default in the analog world was regulation.

The ubiquity of digital production facilities--every desktop PC is a studio and fabrication plant--flips the balance of power. Streaming media can be captured; DVD encoding can be hacked; licensed music can be transmuted into MP3s. The default in the digital world is anarchy.

This would be fine if every artist were a hobbyist, but of course that's not the case. Most artists who are making a serious go of it need every bit of artistic income they can get, because they're diverting time from prosaic, profitable labor. If their art can be distributed ad infinitum without recompense, they'll just stop making art, and be forced to work full-time at Wal-Mart. That doesn't enrich our culture--it impoverishes it.

So, artists need the ability to be paid for their work. That's the root of copyright law. It's not just about the big corporations--it's about the little artists who the corporations look to for new ideas. Without them, we'd be listening to Hillary Duff forever. And that's something we don't dare contemplate.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

What Photos Look Like says:

Monte, people who make the images you so casually steal work hard to make them and hard for the right to make them. What I see in your photostream are a fair number of unlicensed stolen COMMERCIAL images.

Comic-book artists train for years to get to that level, then they work hard delivering pages every day.

Photojournalists train for years, they get sent off into the most terrible places on earth, become targets, and then return to see you stealing their hard-won images and prancing about as if you have the moral highground? Give it a rest.

And besides, you don't have to listen to me. But knowledgeable violation of copyright has a $125K penalty built-in, IIRC. You'd better believe all of the people whose images your stream has ripped-off DO believe in the copyright laws, and so do their publishers and the federal marshalls. Lecture the rest of the world about the evils of soicety and the wonders of technological freedom (your freedom, apparently, not that of others), but stealing is still stealing. Don't obfuscate it with grandiose verbiage about tech or a (stolen) Malcolm X mask.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SMeaLLuM says:

Some thoughts on this Montefuser:
----------------------------------
(Sorry guys to take this personally, but as the originator of this thread i think i am entitled)

1)This Montefuser signed up in Flickr with the main and initially only goal of getting pictures for his blog(he said this on an email sent to me)

2)He started to compulsively grab pics from other users for that purpose, using the wrong way, which displayed these pictures in his photostream as if it were his(probably he didn't know this, but as it's been proven later he doesn't care)

3)Following a comment a little bit out of tone that he left on one of my pics i went to check on his pics only to find my pics and other user's without any mention and asked him to remove them. Unlike him, I DO share a lot of pictures and a lot of myself in them. I DO allow anybody in the world to use my pictures, and that is why i have consciously chosen the CC licenses that leaves no doubt about that, but having my pics displayed by another user of the same community i frecuent is against my idea of slowly strengthtening my ties in this community and finding human beings that share interests, ideas, visions, etc... My pictures say a lot about me. I don't want them to be confusedly displayed by another user.

4) All i got were a couple of slightly irrespectful emails from him. After starting this thread and having Flickr Staff contact him, APPARENTLY he removed my pics(he told me he had done so) from his photostream, being irrespectful in private again to me for having "ratted him out".

4)Honoring what looks like his own idea of a free world, he has secretly posted my pictures in his blog. Of course he doesn't share with us the address. I did some exact search on a line of his post and there it was. You can see it here.In his blog, my pictures link to his photostream, no attribution to mine. He actually still has them in HIS photostream, just set to private, so it looks like he has removed them.

4) He has taken the discussion to bigger issues but the point that he is missing is that: sure, there are bigger issues, but that doesn't make the small ones unimportant. The point that this Montefuser(or The Prophet, as he calls himself in his "Contradiction blog") is that respect is important. Creativity is not necessarily increased just because people compulsively cut, paste and appropiate ideas and works as their own. When somebody creates something in any way(photos, essays, ideas) the most sacred thing he deserves is to be attributed for it. If the creation is separated from the attribution, we'll end up living in a world where nobody will know for sure who's who, whose ideas are whose...can you imagine?

5) So the real point that Montefuser is missing is about his own "contradiction"(the name of his blog). He seems to be fighting for a world with more freedom, but when HE speaks with Dr. Lawrence Lessig's cutted and pasted words forgetting to mention the author and we believe it's him speaking, he is actually putting in jeopardy OUR freedom. I'll explain this: I chose to share my pics as long as i am attributed, that doesn't have anything to do with personal fame, money or anything like that(i think it's obvious ;-) ) the only thing i defend is the most sacred part of an idea(photo, etc...), which is the link to its creator. Same thing did Dr. Lawrence Lessig when he decided to put his book "FREE CULTURE" available for free in www.free-culture.org/ . He chose to share it for everybody, all he asked through his CC license, was that no portion of his book would be used for commercial purposes, but what leads us to the point of this discussion, he chose to be attributed for it.
Well...once again, Montefuser, you have irrespectfully used portions of his book without citing him. It doesn't matter if it was never your intention to sound as if it were your words. The fact is that you did.

5) Montefuser: I didn't retaliate for your lack of respect for my person...not even for your insulting comments on a teenager(EDIT: young girl) fellow user, when you suggest to her that she's insane for posting sensual pictures of herself in her photostream and that she's stupid(you did this in retaliation for her defending me against the insulting tone of your comments), but i will attack you for YOUR IDEAS, your lies, and the acts with which you back your ideas which are lame(your acts), sorry but that's the truth. You are nothing else than a cut and a paste, an irregular copy of pieces of other things. There are bigger issues in the world, sure, but you fail big time on the small ones. I recommend you focus in the small ones until you can handle the bigger ones. Cheers
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nemo's great uncle says:

I'll have to think about the legal bits, but I have a technical suggestion: Flickr could store CRCs for all photos and, for matches, run a byte-by-byte check. (EDIT: A quick file size check first would save a lot of CPU cycles.)

There's a bonus: It would protect me from myself when I upload the same photo twice.

We now resume our regular, legalistic programming.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sermontef says:


Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )
sermontef edited this topic 67 months ago.

view photos

tabhastal says:

Montefabuser, you are violating the terms of use by using copyrighted material without approval or by not attributing as required. Your defenses appear to be evasive and nonsensical. Surely by now you understand that your actions are inappropriate - if you can't change your behavior then maybe you should use a different hosting site.

I am curious as to the fact that Flickr staff have not yet taken action to remove your offending account. I cannot understand why they have not.

Edited to be less trollish...
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

quoo says:

Has anyone reported him to the staff?
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gabriel Castro says:

First of all, I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to share in the discussion.

Curlsdiva and Montefuser, just because you don't agree with the law it doesn't mean you can just ignore it, right? I don't like certain aspects of copyright law (specially in the US) anymore than you do, but I still have to follow the law.

I don't like some of the provisions on Bill C-60 (Canadian copyright reform proposal) so you can bet I'm doing my best as a Canadian citizen and voter to make sure this bill does not pass.

Also, just because digital technology makes it easy to copy things doesn't mean you are entitled to do it. That's were your moral compass comes into play.

Curlsdiva, what if someone wants to share, as in allow other people to see it? Share doesn't have to mean give it away outright. Putting something on the Internet does not imply an agreement to use as one pleases.

I find your approach very admirable but if someone likes my pictures and would like to share it with their acquaintances they can very well post a link to it. Is that not one of the points of the Internet, to share links to things you find interesting?

Ok, this is much longer than I intended to make so I'll stop here.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Item says:

I just ran into a similar problem albeit not with my own pics, someone else's. Out of curiosity, the term "attribution" in "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs", does that need to be defined by the image's owner? If so then what if that term has not been defined?

What if the image in question has been added to someone else's photostream with a mention of "this is Mr. X's pic" with the person's real name but no website link credit, no flickr name or link either? This image (which is a pic of the owner) has then been posted on the image-borrower's blog in an entry, which paints the actual owner in a negative light. The pic is under the aforementioned license type.

When someone spoke up about it the non-owner person retorted, saying it was "public property". I'm just wondering what the correct method of attribution is if no such method has been outlined?
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gabriel Castro says:

Item, I'd be inclined to say that term "attribution" should be defined by the copyright holder. If they don't say what they expect one should ask before using the work in question (in this case, a photo).

As for posting on a blog, the non-owner "should" have probably used the "Blog This" link from the original photo as that would probably sidestep any attribution problems. Whether or not the non-owner can use a picture of the owner on a negative piece is probably more of a moral issue than a legal one (in this case specifically).
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Civilized Explorer says:

Out of curiosity, the term "attribution" in "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs", does that need to be defined by the image's owner? If so then what if that term has not been defined?

The definitions are set by the Creative Commons, not individuals. That way if someone says Attribution, NonCommerical, NoDerivs, everyone can look that up and know what it means:
creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

When someone spoke up about it the non-owner person retorted, saying it was "public property". I'm just wondering what the correct method of attribution is if no such method has been outlined?

This is a common retort, and it _generally_ is wrong. Unless a person has placed the image in the public domain or any copyright on it expired, the image is not public property. There is little use arguing about it with such individuals.

Attribution under non-CC works is a problem in that US copyright laws don't specify attribution requirements (as I recall -- if I'm wrong, I'll be corrected). Generally the copyright notice should be displayed by the artist who holds title to the copyright. If somone uses the photo on his or her Website, the copyright notice should be repeated, and I think a link to the artist's original location should be given (but it's not required). If it is used with permission, whatever the artist asked should be done: "Copyright © 2005 Joe Blow. All rights reserved. Used with permission."

Note that the copyright notice is not required to have the copyright, but it gives borrowers a way to alert readers that the image is the intellectual property of another.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gabriel Castro says:

Ah yes, Civilized Explorer said it much better than I did.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Item says:

Many thanks, Gabriel Castro and Civilized Explorer. It's all very clear now. Though it is diffcult to lead a stubborn ass to enlightenment, you have given me the arms necessary to at least give it shot. Thanks again!
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

quoo says:

Heather, a staff member posted this in a similiar thread:

heather Flickr Staff says:

Actually, the way to go for the fastest resolution is to follow the info on the bottom of our Terms of Use:

www.flickr.com/terms.gne

If you send email to help, we'll direct you to the link I've listed above.

With a complete request (the info in the six bullets), we can take quick action.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bsdfm says:

Unless I'm mistaken, the anyone can blog whatever picture on Flickr that they please without violating anyone's copyright whether or not it's CC licensed.



Pigeons, courtesy of quoo. She can't copyright <img src="https://photos17.flickr.com/21985801_03b78f2238_t.jpg"> now can she?

Copyright limits copying, which this dude has obviously done and can be prohibited. My point is just that if SMeaLLuM wants people to be able to link to his pictures and nothing else, he should just leave his images © all rights reserved. CC means you really do only want attribution, sharealike, noncommercial, or noderivs limitations.

Boy do I miss the noattrib licenses from 1.0.

EDIT: Curlsdiva, Caterina, when CC released their 2.0 licenses, they said they'd discontinued their no-attribution licenses because web traffic showed that they were not being used often if at all. IMHO, they're the only worthwhile licenses that CC ever put out, so I was rather disappointed by the disappearance as well. (I don't think any of their 2.0 licenses are GPL compatible.) I haven't dug to see if there was any further discussion about the disappearance. Maybe we should dig and pester those who need pestering?

EDIT: Here's the story.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Civilized Explorer says:

She can't copyright <img src="https://photos17.flickr.com/21985801_03b78f2238_t.jpg" /> now can she?

Uh, that may not be necessary. Whether quoo has in fact copyrighted her image I can't say. But if a person has copyrighted an image, the US statute gives that person "the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:" reproduce the work, distribute copies, display the work publicly, and some other things.

I would say that you have caused the work to be reproduced, therefore, you have reproduced it. I think that you have distributed a copy of the work. And I think you have displayed the work publicly. (You've caused the distribution and display of the work by using that HTML markup.) So while copyright does give the owner of the interest in the copyright exclusive rights to copy the image, there are other exclusive rights as well (I have not listed all of them: Title 17 USC Section 106.)

Linking to pictures without displaying them seems to be permissible, but some people object if the image itself is all that's shown when it's part of a larger context -- is linking only to an image so that it's called up out of context an impermissible display not authorized by the owner? May be.

And if I thought that copyrighting my pictures and putting the notice on them would keep people from taking them, I'd be optimistic.

See straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_1... for the relevant section of the statute. Click on "Title 17" for the entire law.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jennanana says:

I just wanted to point out another thing to think about:
Even if Montefuser hadn't used other people's photos from Flickr, and had only uploaded well known images from the web to be used for his blog, he's still not using Flickr in the manner for which I've come to see that it's meant for.

Granted, I don't think this is defined in the TOS, but I see Flickr as a way to share photographs with the Flickr community, not as an image hosting service. I see the "blog this" option as a convenient feature, but not the main use.

But other people have other views of it, I'm sure. Just something I found odd.

Oh, and Montefuser never did say that those were his own words, but without proper reference it is plagiarism, no matter how much you imply they aren't your own words.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

To clarify a point in Civilized Explorer's excellent post, every piece of intellectual property that a person produces inherently is protected by copyright law in the U.S. You no longer have to commit any positive act to copyright it, like registering it. You can register it, but that only documents your rights; it is not necessary to establish those rights. Moreover, there are other, equally acceptable ways to document them.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sermontef says:


Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )
sermontef edited this topic 67 months ago.

view photos

emilyejones says:

"If we don't want our photos (especially of our loved ones, even more especially of children) to be 'misused', don't put them on the internet - period. And if what happens to our photos matters a great deal to us because of professional reputation and so on, why post on a photo sharing site, why not show the work on a private website?"

I'm not trying to argue with this, but in light of what happened to me today, I'd like to add the point that people aren't necessarily just going to steal photos you've uploaded to flickr. The user who did what she did to me today stole my photos off my photo site, none of them had been posted here at flickr and in fact, two of them had long since been removed my archives.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Stevens says:

It's time to rip apart montefuser's self-serving arguments, once and for all:

This is just a creation of the modern world, that protects the producers, but I'm just stating and trying to tell you what the facts are...
Copyright protection was pioneered by the British in 1710 (the Statute of Anne). The authority of Congress to grant copyright and patent protection in the U.S. dates from the enactment of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) in the 1780s. It is no modern creation, unless by "modern" you mean relative to the Middle Ages, when copying meant "a monk in a scriptorium."

and also my opinion- that copyrights and this relatively new idea of crediting, and controlling ideas, information will harm US ALL. Don't just tell me what the law is, because fact is the law is confusing as hell, contradicting and you are no lawyers which basically does not put you in the position to tell me what is and what isn't right and wrong.
J.D., Vanderbilt, 1995. Next?

If there is anything that I find a sign of ignorance is intolerance. We all have the right to think anything he wants and we must show respect toward that freedom- insulting me proves no point.
If you think that accepting your own challenge and taking apart your leaky logic is an insult, then you've got some growing up to do.

If the government law says you can't avoid the draft does that mean you should go and fight in a war you do not believe in? Absolutely not, laws are not always ethical and really in the best interest of the people.
Certainly you're free to operate that way. I assume you mean to analogize the Vietnam War draft to copyright protection. Putting aside the obscenity of equating war with your "right" to copy other people's JPEGs, let's complete your analogy: You should expect to land in prison or exile for ignoring copyright law, too.

Copyright laws are just laws to protect the producers- not the consumers. Government just plays favorites and should not be involved- since they are not being neutral.
Of course, these laws exist to protect the producers. That's not an indictment--it's a fact. And any adult should realize that governments are never neutral. They make value judgments every day. Value judgments are inherent in every law: "X is allowed; Y, which we feel is wrong, is forbidden." If you want to get the law changed, it's incumbent upon you to prove that the value judgment underlying the law is wrong. The problem is, your attempt to do that was undermined by falsehood and illogic. So, you fall back on simply violating the law:

But don't just call me the criminal because this isn't a crime, and you all do it too. Who has MP3 players full of copied songs? you dont really think that people actually bought, or converted 20 to 60 gigs of purchased music now did you?! maybe this justs proves that we dont feel this is a crime, but just an issue.
You just shot yourself in the foot. I have 15 GB of MP3s, comprising 2,500 songs. That's more than six days of music, which is enough for most people. Every one of these is from a legitimately-purchased CD, sales site or free download from an artist's site. I've steered clear of file-sharing networks for security reasons.

So, if you have 20 to 60 GB of stolen music (which you consider normal), that means you have somewhere between 3,300 and 10,000 stolen songs. At a buck a song...hm, you've ripped off $10,000 worth of music. If you think that's normal, then you've got more growing up to do.

(I don't care if I plagirised because this is just some blog, not an official printing- documentation. And if you don't like it, then leave and go cry.
Which, of course, is why you don't provide any documentation for anything you say. News flash: In the real world, people want proof. People demand sound reasoning. You cannot skate along on passion and rhetoric alone, even if your professors let you get away with it in college.

Oddly enough, you're the same guy who says, "So when you make bold statements do back them up with some fact or stat, because although people may say and think what you say it does not necessarily make it true." It's unfortunate that you don't take your own advice.

Ahm im bored by people's stupid comments and disgusted by their intolerance, so im out.
The final refuge of a child who has been out-argued. Bring your marbles back to the table whenever you wish. We'll be waiting for you.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sbpoet says:

Thanks again, Matt -- for patience, throughness, and clarity.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bsdfm says:

I would say that you have caused the work to be reproduced, therefore, you have reproduced it. I think that you have distributed a copy of the work. And I think you have displayed the work publicly. (You've caused the distribution and display of the work by using that HTML markup.)

And neither you nor I are lawyers. It's a rather new area of law, and there is a bit of material available on the web about it. It's possible to argue that you are committing "contributory infringement", but that's untested and IMH and irrelevant O it's rather dubious: it's as easy to disallow hotlinking as it is to allow it.

Flickr explicitly allows it. If you put your image up on Flickr, and people can and will hotlink it, and you will have no recourse except to limit its public visibility. So that's exactly what you should do.

My point was just that SMeaLLuM didn't need to CC his work in order for his friends to be able to blog the images to their heart's content. He didn't; they don't; lemme 'lone.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gabriel Castro says:

Thanks Matt, that was just beautiful.

As for the law existing only for the benefit of the producers, that's not always true. It's true in the US but Canada still has some fair-use rights and Australia is looking into adopting fair-use oriented copyright law.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Violentz says:

Curlsdiva wrote "Violentz, you say you chose to take the risks. Surely if you make a choice to take a risk, you must also accept the consequences whichever way the risk goes for you: good or bad."

Curlsdiva...yes, I take the risk when I post my images on the web, but when I discover that someone else on Flickr is posting my work on their FLickr account (without attribution I might add), doesn't mean I should just allow it when FLICKR gives me the means through their TOS to get the image removes, which is what I did....and which is what Flickr did (Remove the PHOTO). Your logic is telling me I should just accept it and leave it alone. Just because you CC all of your images and don't care who else uses it, doesn't mean I can't take advantage of what Flickr offers me to protect my images as much as they can be protected on the net, and use their TOS to have my stolen work posted on other FLICKR accounts removed. I am quite satified that the copyrighted photograph of mine was removed from the violator's Flickr account by FLICKR by the means they, FLICKR, have established for all of their users.

Again, I am aware that any image of mine can easily be lifted from my Flickr account...and again, that is the risk I take by using this service. If I see an image of mine being misused on FLICKR according to FLICKR's TOS and copyright law, I will make an attempt to stop it, if possible. Why YOU have a problem with that is beyond me.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sermontef says:


Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )
sermontef edited this topic 67 months ago.

view photos

tabhastal says:

Montefuser is a troll. Treat him as such.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Smokeyprog says:


Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bsdfm says:

tabhastal, it's pretty clear that montfeuser believes his own rhetoric. Treat him how you want, but he's not a troll. He just has an unpopular opinion.

montfeuser, whether you're right or wrong, I don't think you're going to make much impact here. People have this kind of thing ingrained in their minds since kindergarten, when some kid shouted at them "You can't draw a pony; I'm drawing a pony." Most people, on a gut level, believe in the ownership of ideas. I've only ever made an impact on this line of thought when talking to someone in person. In person you can address their misunderstandings immediately, and avoid back-and-forth argument.
Posted 107 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads