Questions about using Flickr

[hotchilidamo]

What are your feelings about using Flickr?

I really like having a backup of my shots and I like sharing them, but I'm not sure of the protection available and licensing options.

As I've said in other threads, I love taking shots and sharing them. I'd like to make money out of them if I can, but this isn't essential right now. So I suppose I have a bunch of questions on using Flickr that are unresolved. Can you help answer them?

• should I select a creative commons license or leave images as the default 'all rights reserved'?
• if my image is on flickr will that have a negative impact on its sale value? e.g. If I write an article and try to sell it, it won't be selected if it is available already elsewhere
• even if I have license settings, does that really protect you from someone using your work without telling you?
• should I consider restricting the size of the image I upload, so its not available hi-res if someone does wish to poach it?

I know it is possible to place a watermark on the image but I've never been that keen on it, and I think it is a bit presumptious in my case

[BigFuzzy]

Honestly, the short answer is if you fear having your image stolen your only real option is to not have it online.
Next best would be an intrusive watermark that makes it too much trouble to try to steal and remove.

I, personally, choose all rights reserved, then there's no doubt. Anyone who really wants to buy your image will contact you no matter what conditions you have on it to see if it's for sale whereas some may misinterpret the CC and think they can use it so there's greater risk (in my opinion) of it showing up elsewhere with CC rights.

As for hurting sale price.. yes if the image is available freely in the exact same format as the one you'd be selling. However, if someone can only find a low res version with a clear watermark on it online and can only find the full sized un-watermarked version by buying it from you, I'd say no, the value isn't hurt.

yes, you should consider restricting the size of your images that are available online if you're concerned with theft/inappropriate usage.

No amount of license setting fully protects your image. There are plenty of ways to steal it no matter what your license settings. So, if you want 100% guarantees, simply don't put it online is the only answer.

Hope this helps.. and yes, it's a crappy thief infested world out there in the digital pond we call the web.

[hotchilidamo]

Originally Posted by BigFuzzy

Honestly, the short answer is if you fear having your image stolen your only real option is to not have it online.
Next best would be an intrusive watermark that makes it too much trouble to try to steal and remove.

I, personally, choose all rights reserved, then there's no doubt. Anyone who really wants to buy your image will contact you no matter what conditions you have on it to see if it's for sale whereas some may misinterpret the CC and think they can use it so there's greater risk (in my opinion) of it showing up elsewhere with CC rights.

As for hurting sale price.. yes if the image is available freely in the exact same format as the one you'd be selling. However, if someone can only find a low res version with a clear watermark on it online and can only find the full sized un-watermarked version by buying it from you, I'd say no, the value isn't hurt.

yes, you should consider restricting the size of your images that are available online if you're concerned with theft/inappropriate usage.

No amount of license setting fully protects your image. There are plenty of ways to steal it no matter what your license settings. So, if you want 100% guarantees, simply don't put it online is the only answer.

Hope this helps.. and yes, it's a crappy thief infested world out there in the digital pond we call the web.

Thanks Al. Ok, here's another question for your opinion. As someone who's not making money from photos yet, should I be worried about it? or should I just share them on Flickr and enjoy more people looking at them and commenting on them?

I can't quite work out how I feel about it, so would appreciate your perspective

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by hotchilidamo

Thanks Al. Ok, here's another question for your opinion. As someone who's not making money from photos yet, should I be worried about it? or should I just share them on Flickr and enjoy more people looking at them and commenting on them?

I can't quite work out how I feel about it, so would appreciate your perspective

First, unless you put in lots of effort (ie submitting photos to tons of groups, using lots of tags, or simply have lots of friends that get the 'word of mouth' thing going), you'll not get a whole lot of comments on/viewing of your images. Just plopping them on there isn't going to get you the interaction/feedback you may want. I'm ok with that as I use it mostly for storage/linkage of images to my blog/etc.

As for being worried about the theft.. i can only tell you how I feel about my work, and not what I think you should do. I, personally, am not too concerned. Mostly because what business I do do isn't likely to be damaged by my images being stolen (other than the revenue I might have gotten, but how likely are you to get paid by people who're stealing anyways). I don't target the "get paid for usage of your photo" market, so I'm really not concerned with it.

I'm sure I should be a lot more concerned, but I'm simply not and it's probably based on the fact I'm not a full-time pro.

So... to me, it really depends on whether you feel that theft of your images will somehow damage your business.. (at least as I see it, others are likely to differ in this opinion).

[hotchilidamo]

Originally Posted by BigFuzzy

First, unless you put in lots of effort (ie sumbitting photos to tons of groups, using lots of tags, or simply have lots of friends that get the 'word of mouth' thing going), you'll not get a whole lot of comments on/viewing of your images. Just plopping them on there isn't going to get you the interaction/feedback you may want. I'm ok with that as I use it mostly for storage/linkage of images to my blog/etc.

As for being worried about the theft.. i can only tell you how I feel about my work, and not what I think you should do. I, personally, am not too concerned. Mostly because what business I do do isn't likely to be damaged by my images being stolen (other than the revenue I might have gotten, but how likely are you to get paid by people who're stealing anyways). I don't target the "get paid for usage of your photo" market, so I'm really not concerned with it.

I'm sure I should be a lot more concerned, but I'm simply not and it's probably based on the fact I'm not a full-time pro.

So... to me, it really depends on whether you feel that theft of your images will somehow damage your business.. (at least as I see it, others are likely to differ in this opinion).

Makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for your input

[SwissJon]

I'm curious BF.. What is the maximum size you tend to put on line and why? I've recently started to cut down the size of my photos from full size for all the reasons mentioned.. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the maximum dimension, horizontally or vertically, should be about 2000 as that means that someone with a full HD screen can fill the screen with it without a reduction in quality.. I watermark my images and the combination of the two, and setting it to "All Rights Reserved" will hopefully mean that if people like my images enough, they'll contact me.. I'm not at all bothered about people using my photos as desktop images for their PC.. In fact I find the idea that someone would rather a compliment. (I know at least one person who regularly downloads my photos for that purpose, but I'm married to her )

I guess this is a whole new topic, but it would be interesting to find out what dimensions people restrict their images to, and why (If they do restrict them)

[hotchilidamo]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I'm curious BF.. What is the maximum size you tend to put on line and why? I've recently started to cut down the size of my photos from full size for all the reasons mentioned.. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the maximum dimension, horizontally or vertically, should be about 2000 as that means that someone with a full HD screen can fill the screen with it without a reduction in quality.. I watermark my images and the combination of the two, and setting it to "All Rights Reserved" will hopefully mean that if people like my images enough, they'll contact me.. I'm not at all bothered about people using my photos as desktop images for their PC.. In fact I find the idea that someone would rather a compliment. (I know at least one person who regularly downloads my photos for that purpose, but I'm married to her )

I guess this is a whole new topic, but it would be interesting to find out what dimensions people restrict their images to, and why (If they do restrict them)

There is a setting on Flickr (not sure what you're using) that stops people from viewing your original upload size. That way you can use it as a back up, but then only show people the image up to the largest size being 1024.

This is a pretty good option IMO. Here's the text on the setting in Flickr:

This setting lets you choose who can see your original image files.

Enabling this setting also places deterrents to discourage downloading of your other sizes. (And we really do mean "discourage". Please understand that if a photo can be viewed in a web browser, it can be downloaded.)

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I'm curious BF.. What is the maximum size you tend to put on line and why?

On flickr I upload full sized images (ie original sized) but limit those that can view them (ie contact) which is a pretty tightly controlled group. I don't just friend/contact anyone mostly because there's a small group of photographers (or friends) who's photos I really want to see and everyone else.. less so (no offense anyone!).
On my website, I think many are 1200 or 1600 on the longest side and again, I'm just not too concerned with my images safety as the market for them would (likely) only ever be the subject.