What’s Your Preference?

Skoropada · #1 (**permalink**) 11-15-2010, 01:59 AM

Every now and then I google myself using the image search so I can see how relevant I am in the cyberworld (usually totally irrelevant).

Today I found this picture on a Washington Times blog:

(link to the article)

This is my original picture, as I posted it on Flickr:

According to the licencing options I set on Flickr, is it OK for them to use it like that? I didn't even receive and e-mail mentioning they were going to use the picture, and even less asking for permission.

I'd appreciate the comments of the more seasoned photographers.

Thanks!

IABoomer · #2 (**permalink**) 11-15-2010, 02:32 AM

Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

They've given you credit (the attribution clause) they didn't modify the image (the no derivative works clause) and they're not using it commercially (the image usage is editorial, not commercial).

They aren't required to inform you or ask for permission, since you've explicitly given this permission with the license you've chosen. I'm sure it would be nice if they gave you a heads-up, but legally, there's nothing wrong with this situation.

OsmosisStudios · #3 (**permalink**) 11-15-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IABoomer

Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

They've given you credit (the attribution clause) they didn't modify the image (the no derivative works clause) and they're not using it commercially (the image usage is editorial, not commercial).

They aren't required to inform you or ask for permission, since you've explicitly given this permission with the license you've chosen. I'm sure it would be nice if they gave you a heads-up, but legally, there's nothing wrong with this situation.

It's not creative commons: its only a limited rights reserved.

OP:
You've got it so that they cant use it for commercial use: how the blog falls into that is a grey area not well explained by the DMCA.

Does the Washington Post page link to your flickr? If not, I'd e-mail them and ask them for at LEAST that (it's required). But I'd also ask for compensation for their use of the image on a commercial blog.

Skoropada · #4 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 12:47 PM

Thanks IABoomer and OsmosisStudios!

I believe that being that blog related to an opensource web application makes it non-commercial.

When I found out they had used my picture I felt ackward, a mix of pride and anger.
Pride because they chose my picture (that I don't consider to be a masterpiece of any sort) and anger because I would have expected to get a notice at least.

OsmosisStudios · #5 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoropada

I believe that being that blog related to an opensource web application makes it non-commercial.

When I found out they had used my picture I felt ackward, a mix of pride and anger.
Pride because they chose my picture (that I don't consider to be a masterpiece of any sort) and anger because I would have expected to get a notice at least.

Open source or not, it;s connected to the Washington Times: Theyve got money.

dcclark · #6 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 04:10 PM

It's entirely possible to have a for-profit site concerning not-for-profit ideas. There are a number of companies which do very well by selling open-source software, and service for it.

So no, there is clearly something here which goes beyond the uses allowed by your license. I'd contact them and *nicely* ask for a link, if it's not included.

vandergus · #7 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

It's not creative commons: its only a limited rights reserved.

OP:
You've got it so that they cant use it for commercial use: how the blog falls into that is a grey area not well explained by the DMCA.

Does the Washington Post page link to your flickr? If not, I'd e-mail them and ask them for at LEAST that (it's required). But I'd also ask for compensation for their use of the image on a commercial blog.

Click on the licensing link on the photo page. The license is exactly how IABoomer described it. I don't see any problem with the way they are using the image as long as it links back to the flickr page to comply with flickr's terms of service.

EDIT: Looks like they do have a link back to the photo page.

#8 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoropada

Every now and then I google myself using the image search so I can see how relevant I am in the cyberworld (usually totally irrelevant)

Narcissist.

~Eric

Skoropada · #9 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxharvard

Narcissist.

~Eric

Only in regards of my photography and the online world...

OsmosisStudios · #10 (**permalink**) 11-16-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandergus

Click on the licensing link on the photo page. The license is exactly how IABoomer described it. I don't see any problem with the way they are using the image as long as it links back to the flickr page to comply with flickr's terms of service.

EDIT: Looks like they do have a link back to the photo page.

That's what I did, and while it links to a page from the CC website (linked, as you noted, on the flickr page), the flickr page also says "Some rights reserved" as the image can be licensed through Getty. FOr that reason alone, the work is being used inappropriately by the other website.