Flickr and Copyrights

[SpAcE126]

I'll start by saying that I don't do photography for money or recognition, it's just a side hobby that I do for fun, but I would love to be warned when my pictures are used on external websites.
I was wondering, what are the Flickr copyright restrictions? I came across three websites that used my pictures for articles (USSF’s Potential Second Division Solution Deserves Credit, Continued Scrutiny « Set Piece Analysts) or full out ad programs (a local Holiday Inn used it on a vacation agency website, the account is closed now but I received no warning or contact, which is frustrating because they tried to make money out of if). I don't understand how can Flickr allow such easy access to the material, because I know that none of these pictures are anywhere else on the web!

[OsmosisStudios]

Hey Neb.

All your images on Flickr are set to ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, which means the Holiday Inn would definitely need to ask your permission. The link you provided, however, might be able to claim journalistic/editorial use (they still gave you a byline), but they SHOULD have actually linked back to the original page.

In the case of your link, I would e-mail the author of that article and ask them to include a link directly back to the image on your flickr account (as well as the byline) but also asking them (rather forcefully) to do the same for all future articles using images from other sites. That being said, if they have altered your image in any way, send them a bill for use.

In the case of the Holiday Inn, see if you cant find an archive using the WayBackMachine (waybackmachine.org) of the page/listing. If you can, then send the hotel a bill, first to that particular location. If that doesnt work, send one to corporate. If that fails, and you feel it warrants it, hire a lawyer to send them one.

ALWAYS send invoices like this as Certified Mail, so that they have to sign saying they've received it. You should be able to find a few examples online.

[wulf]

If someone can see it on their screen, they can take a screenshot so copy protection is limited in practical terms. Ethically (and legally) it is a different matter but Flickr can't do much more to protect your pictures. If you are really bothered, you need to limit the people who can see the images or at least see ones large enough to use.

Wulf

[OsmosisStudios]

Sorry wulf, but I respectfully disagree. The images are on Flickr and they're marked as ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. What these people have done is steal, plain and simple. While, like I said, the article the OP linked to could argue editorial, they are still required to ask/inform the photographer and link back. The hotel, though, is straight up theft.

[SpAcE126]

Thanks for the replies. Well the hotel didn't hold it for more then a day because I can't trace the image for more then a day (somewhat strange, but I suppose they got shut down on the website). It's somewhat nice to know we have some kind of copyright protection in this sort of procedure.

The thing that I don't understand is how come Flickr doesn't apply security blocks for the copy paste procedure. It can be easily done even in a html format, and would prevent this sort of thing.

[IABoomer]

Originally Posted by SpAcE126

The thing that I don't understand is how come Flickr doesn't apply security blocks for the copy paste procedure. It can be easily done even in a html format, and would prevent this sort of thing.

Because to really do anything about it, you'd have to have a browser that understood digital rights management (DRM) and had some universal method of applying DRM methods to Flickr images.

As long as Flickr sends the image to your browser to have it viewed, the user can copy it from the page, or directly from the browser cache. There's nothing at all Flickr or any other web server could do to prevent such a thing from happening.

Develop a scheme that's 100% effective at preventing digital media from being copied illegally and you'll be a billionaire because Hollywood, the music industry, and the software firms will treat you like a deity. Photographers will be a very distant fourth.

[Peter Ahrens]

Originally Posted by SpAcE126

I came across three websites that used my pictures for articles (USSF’s Potential Second Division Solution Deserves Credit, Continued Scrutiny « Set Piece Analysts) or full out ad programs (a local Holiday Inn used it on a vacation agency website, the account is closed now but I received no warning or contact, which is frustrating because they tried to make money out of if).

How did you find that these websites had your work on it? Is there something on flickr that can track this? Or did you stumble across this by accident?

[wulf]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Sorry wulf, but I respectfully disagree. The images are on Flickr and they're marked as ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. What these people have done is steal, plain and simple. While, like I said, the article the OP linked to could argue editorial, they are still required to ask/inform the photographer and link back. The hotel, though, is straight up theft.

You aren't disagreeing. I said that there is nothing to stop someone taking anything displayed on a screen via a screen shot mechanism. If you provide them the instructions on how to recreate your image, they can grab it.

I then said that ethically and legally it is a different matter. While in some respects different to stealing a physical object, reusing a photo without permission is nonetheless theft.

Can you even use someone else's picture for editorial purposes without permission? I thought that covered the right to allow your picture of someone else to be used without their written consent, not the right to use someone else's picture.

Wulf

[candleman]

Originally Posted by Peter Ahrens

How did you find that these websites had your work on it? Is there something on flickr that can track this? Or did you stumble across this by accident?

flickr Pro accounts have tracking much like googleAnalytics that shows where the views are coming from.

you can also use TinEye Reverse Image Search to do specific searches

[Statto]

Originally Posted by wulf

If someone can see it on their screen, they can take a screenshot so copy protection is limited in practical terms. Ethically (and legally) it is a different matter but Flickr can't do much more to protect your pictures. If you are really bothered, you need to limit the people who can see the images or at least see ones large enough to use.

Wulf

Hi SpAcE126

Wulf is quite correct here

You are putting your pix on the world wide web, for everyone to see
If you can see it, you can take it basically
Theres not a lot you can do about the actual 'stealing' of your photos, its more a case of 'how much effort do you want to put into tracking down the thieves and prosecuting them'

I bet someone out there can put a statistic to the 'stealing' of images
eg for every 1000 pix on the world wide web, 100 have been reproduced in one form or another without paying any copyright fees

If you really dont want people taking your pix in the first place either, dont put em on the WWW, or watermark the images before uploading them

Hope this helps