News.com using Flickr photos

[stoogest]

Hi all,

Not sure if this is commonplace or not, but I noticed that News.com were using photos from Flickr in one of their galleries advertising 'Beach Breaks'. Here's a link to one of the images:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/holiday-deals/gallery-e6frfqh0-1225913270746?page=3

Am I too cynical in thinking that this is an attempt to keep costs down? Or do you think the photographers are getting financial reward for use of their photos?

Andrew.

[keith-killer]

From what I remember a few years back.... A young girl from Australia was used in a Virgin mobile commerical in the USA with out her consent. It seemed at the time, the Flikr user agreement allowed Flickr to sell the photos to any of their partners unless you opted out somewhere in your settings. Most people dont read the fine print. Her uncle or such uploaded the full sized image taken with a dSLR so they had a high quality image.

I am not sure if they have changed anything or not, but I did read somewhere some major stock agencies were looking at Flickr for an agreement on something.

I sure hope at least these days they tell the photo owner if someone wants to use it..

[Xenedis]

I looked up the image in question.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dearanxiety/4710917403/

It has a Creative Commons licence.

I'm not terribly familiar with CC licences and how news.com.au's usage fits with that, but here is the CC licencing as applied to that image:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en

[Analog6]

Er, the info on that photo says it was taken on 15 Sept 2010??

[ricktas]

Getty and Flickr also have an agreement (http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/) about using Flickr stored photos. It probably goes without saying that most large media groups would have deals with Getty... I am sure you can join the dots

[DAdeGroot]

As Johnno pointed out the image is under a no derivations, attribution CC license.
What that allows is the transmition & distribution of the image provided it is attributed in the way requested[1] and that it is not modified to form a derivative work.
Interestingly the author also has the image available via Flickr's Getty agreement. This is an odd arrangement for the flickr user as under the CC license potential users of the image don't have to pay Getty anything.

It is more likely the newspaper is using it under the CC license rather than the Getty agreement though. Why do I say this ? 'cause newspapers, esp. their online presence, are cheap.


[1] The flickr terms of service state that images can "shared" on the 'net provided they are linked back to the flickr photo page. The website in question has not done this and may therefore be in a breach of the terms of service. I say may because they do refer to the site name and the user ID as an attribution so that might be enough to qualify.

[Longshots]

I would be extremely wary of using Flikr.




Simply put, the terms and conditions of use is something that has always put me off using it.

I've never understood why so many people do. The terms and conditions have always been fairly awful.

At the end of the day, those who do choose to use a site or sites like Flikr, should never forget the saying that "there's no free lunch".

Why do so many people expect a site to host their images, and not expect some price to pay ?

[Wayne]

I would be extremely wary of using Flikr.




Simply put, the terms and conditions of use is something that has always put me off using it.

I've never understood why so many people do. The terms and conditions have always been fairly awful.

At the end of the day, those who do choose to use a site or sites like Flikr, should never forget the saying that "there's no free lunch".

Why do so many people expect a site to host their images, and not expect some price to pay ?

+1
That's why I don't use it. Free image harvesting at it's best.

[Redgum]

I would be extremely wary of using Flikr.

Simply put, the terms and conditions of use is something that has always put me off using it.

I've never understood why so many people do.

It's simple William. The vast majority of users, except some enthusiasts, look forward to their image being "used" with or without permission. Commercial/professionals simply don't use the site for obvious reasons. Good place to put your "seconds" if you're confident with your work.

[Longshots]

It's simple William. The vast majority of users, except some enthusiasts, look forward to their image being "used" with or without permission. Commercial/professionals simply don't use the site for obvious reasons. Good place to put your "seconds" if you're confident with your work.


Thats odd, all I ever receive or read is complaints that someone has used their image from Flikr ? And they dont appear to be ever happy about it.

[Kym]

I use flickr with a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons license.
I rarely put up hi-res stuff

http://creativecommons.org/


Getty is opt-in on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/#2251

So as long as you set up your account correctly there is no problem.

[Longshots]

That didnt stop several high profile companies (in Europe) using images from Flikr.


Law courts are now dealing with several case - with one class action ongoing.


BTW they were enthusiasts who had posted there holiday shots on Flikr, and they had correctly set up their accounts.

[Kym]

That didnt stop several high profile companies (in Europe) using images from Flikr.
Law courts are now dealing with several case - with one class action ongoing.
BTW they were enthusiasts who had posted there holiday shots on Flikr, and they had correctly set up their accounts.

If they had set up their accounts (i.e. licensing) then it makes the case clear.
Whoever used the images is in trouble

[Longshots]

The calibre of the company's would surprise you. One was Virgin Mobile :


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896643/

[jbee]

I am new to all this but mine say Copyright all rights reserved and i checked the Getty box to say "Available for Request to License"

Is that normal and does it mean I still have control over my images, I don't mind someone using them provided I approve of the use and if its commercial use I get paid, assuming of course i ever produce anything good enough. As Redgum has pointed out I have to say, I would be pleased as punch if they did want too.
:)

[Xenedis]

Flikr ... I've never understood why so many people do. The terms and conditions have always been fairly awful.

In what way?


At the end of the day, those who do choose to use a site or sites like Flikr, should never forget the saying that "there's no free lunch".

My Flickr account is a "Pro" account (ie, one for which I pay, as opposed to the far more limited free account). My "lunch" was free for the five or ten minutes before I decided that it was worth parting with some legal tender.


Commercial/professionals simply don't use the site for obvious reasons.

I think you might be surprised at how many commercial photographers do have a presence there. Flickr's non-commercial usage requirement notwithstanding, it's unlikely that pro photographers with a presence there would use it as a shop-front; it could simply be another avenue for publicity or contact, much as many commercial organisations have presences on Facebook and Twitter.

[Xenedis]

I am new to all this but mine say Copyright all rights reserved and i checked the Getty box to say "Available for Request to License"

Is that normal and does it mean I still have control over my images, I don't mind someone using them provided I approve of the use and if its commercial use I get paid, assuming of course i ever produce anything good enough. As Redgum has pointed out I have to say, I would be pleased as punch if they did want too.
:)

You have (chosen) the default All Rights Reserved licence, which essentially means that your images are not freely available for people to use however they please.

However, it is important to understand that simply declaring all rights reserved is not going to stop people from using your images in an unauthorised manner. If you place an image on the Web, be it on Flickr or anywhere, people will have a copy by mere virtue of having seen it, and anyone who wishes to use it in an unauthorised manner can do so.

If you have opted into making your images available to Getty, Getty should contact you if it wishes to use one of your images.

I don't know the terms of Getty's usage, as I have specifically opted out of that and have not been contacted by Getty.

[Longshots]

In what way?



First of all I suppose I should point out that my comments referred to the free accounts.

This is in particular why I choose not to consider Flikr as providing something that I trust or have faith in:



CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE

Yahoo!7 does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo!7 the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

* With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo!7 Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.
* With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.
* With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.














My Flickr account is a "Pro" account (ie, one for which I pay, as opposed to the far more limited free account). My "lunch" was free for the five or ten minutes before I decided that it was worth parting with some legal tender.



I think you might be surprised at how many commercial photographers do have a presence there. Flickr's non-commercial usage requirement notwithstanding, it's unlikely that pro photographers with a presence there would use it as a shop-front; it could simply be another avenue for publicity or contact, much as many commercial organisations have presences on Facebook and Twitter.

I dont think I would be :) I dont doubt that a presence works for some. But if you saw how many ad agencies and graphic designers used it for "inspiration" and eventual production of "mood boards", and "creative/art direction" when commissioning other photographers, you might think differently.

Yes I agree with you about having a presence. But I personally wouldnt be posting non watermarked images. Would I be right in pointing out that Flikr strips the metadata of your images ? Why would that be required ?

If it works for you that's fine. I simply choose not to place faith in the corporate jungle of the Yahoo Groups - which I believe includes News.com.au. And if you read those terms and conditions that usage within the groups I suspect may include News.com.au. Which would answer the OP's question.

I actually dont know many people who have Flikr accounts, because of the lack of faith in the system. That and the repeated misuse of the system - which admittedly has nothing to do with Flikr but more the ignorance or deliberate misuse by many companies and individuals.

[Xenedis]

This is in particular why I choose not to consider Flikr as providing something that I trust or have faith in:

I don't see any problem with that.

It's basically saying that Flickr can use your images on its site to promote itself.


But I personally wouldnt be posting non watermarked images.[/QUOT]

An individual choice, of course. Some do, and some don't.

[QUOTE=Longshots;671464] Would I be right in pointing out that Flikr strips the metadata of your images ?

No, you wouldn't be correct about that.

Flickr doesn't strip the metadata from my images.

Here's one of my images, showing the metadata intact:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/4448510259/meta/


I actually dont know many people who have Flikr accounts

I know plenty of people who have them, but given I have a presence there, that's not at all surprising. :-)


That and the repeated misuse of the system - which admittedly has nothing to do with Flikr but more the ignorance or deliberate misuse by many companies and individuals.

Misuse of images can happen even if you self-host. It's not a problem exclusive to Flickr as you recognise.

Your self-hosted site doesn't give you any protection from misuse of your images.

[Erin]

Flickr is misused because people are silly enough to post high res (or high-enough res) photos up and then make them publicly available.

I've used Flickr for a while now and never had a problem with them. I know loads of photographers (professional and professional enthusiasts) who use it as a platform for their work who, likewise, have never had a problem. Then again, we don't post images straight from the camera and certainly rarely without a watermark.

The Flickr TOS is standard across the board for any online gallery site.

[Longshots]

I dont think I'm communicating my point very well about Flikr. Yes its a personal choice.

OK Xenidis, the pro version - the paid version is quite different. I was aware of that and I was not referring to that as I previously did mention I was describing my points about the free version.

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata. So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

[Xenedis]

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I think we are in agreement that it's a personal choice.

Consider this, though:

How many other online providers or businesses with which you transact have clauses allowing them to pass your information/content to their affiliates?


I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata.

No, it does not.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_mands/888315999/meta/ as an example.

Flickr users have the option of suppressing the EXIF data. It is still contained in the original image; Flickr just doesn't display it.

If you see an image on Flickr which lacks the EXIF data:


the user's software has stripped it before it was uploaded;
the user has display of EXIF data disabled; or
there wasn't any EXIF data in the first place.



So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

I don't think the free (or otherwise) status of an account says anything useful about the capability of the user to employ safeguards or methods appropriate for that user's level of concern re the usage of his or her images.

Watermarking (or a lack thereof) is again a personal choice which has no bearing on the hosting site.

The difference between a free Flickr account and a "Pro" account is basically more bandwidth, more storage, more images visible, more sets, and a few other features, none of which has any bearing on EXIF data, privacy or rights. I'd also expect Flickr's T&Cs to apply across the board.

From http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#28:


What do I get with a Pro account?

When you upgrade to a Pro account for just US$24.95 a year (or R$45.90 if you’re in Brazil ) you get all this:

* Unlimited photo uploads (20MB per photo)
* Unlimited video uploads (90 seconds max, 500MB per video)
* The ability to show HD Video
* Unlimited storage
* Unlimited bandwidth
* Archiving of high-resolution original images
* The ability to replace a photo
* Post any of your photos or videos in up to 60 group pools
* Ad-free browsing and sharing
* View count and referrer statistics

Compare that to what you get with a Free Account:

* 100 MB monthly photo upload limit (10MB per photo)
* 2 video uploads each month (90 seconds max, 150MB per video)
* Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images
* Post any of your photos in up to 10 group pools
* Only smaller (resized) images accessible (though the originals are saved in case you upgrade later)


I really don't think the free vs. paid (and therefore, more feature-laden) status of a Flickr account is a determining factor in the potential for a user's images to be misused.

It can happen to anyone who posts an image on a public site.

Ignorance or vulnerability to image misuse is not confined to people who aren't willing to spend money on image hosting.

[Longshots]

I'd accept that you're clearly more informed on how to use Flikr then I am. I had a look at the links you posted which display the exif data.

I then chose some images at random, in particular some images of the Christchurch earthquake, and I couldnt read the Exif Data or the Meta Data ? So where am I going wrong ?

Also I thought it worth adding this link to an article complaining about this exact issue:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/04/22/flickr-and-facebook-still-strip-exif-data/

[Xenedis]

I then chose some images at random, in particular some images of the Christchurch earthquake, and I couldnt read the Exif Data or the Meta Data ? So where am I going wrong ?

The situation is exactly as I described in my last post.

The user's image either didn't contain EXIF data (eg, scan), the user's image processing software stripped it (eg, "Save for Web") or the user has disabled the display of EXIF data in his/her account settings.

If you downloaded a non-original (ie, Flickr-resampled) JPG file and looked in it for the EXIF data, maybe that's where you're going wrong. If you viewed the image on the Flickr page, there is an option to view the EXIF data.



Also I thought it worth adding this link to an article complaining about this exact issue:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/04/22/flickr-and-facebook-still-strip-exif-data/

I cannot comment on Facebook, as I have never had an account there.

However, the crucial comment re Flickr is this:


The only exception is that I can now confirm Flickr is preserving the data on original images, just not on the automatically generated resized versions.

The author says he can now confirm. Perhaps this means that he hitherto wasn't aware that Flickr has ostensibly always preserved the EXIF data in original files.

I just downloaded an original-size image from my Flickr account, which I photographed in 2005 and published on Flickr in January of 2006. Unsurprisingly, the EXIF data is there, just as I expected.

The automatically-generated smaller versions Flickr produces do not contain the EXIF data, but the EXIF data is stored in a database, meaning it is viewable even when viewing images at non-original sizes, from the Flickr page. The EXIF data is also extractable via the Flickr API. I know this, because I use the API, and I wrote code specifically to do that.

The author of that article considers it a bad situation that the EXIF data is not preserved in the smaller images generated by Flickr.

I consider it annoying and unnecessary, but I don't think it's quite a case of the sky falling in. Remember, anyone can edit EXIF data in a JPG, so the mere fact that it has the photographer's name, business name, URL, et al. in it doesn't provide any sort of guarantee that it belongs to whomever the EXIF data claims.

Digital watermarking is probably the most effective method of proof of ownership of a digital image.

[Longshots]

Thanks for the information.

It has been informative, and ta for your patience :)

Re no Exif Data - yes sure it can be changed and removed. However, without data with the new Orphan Works bill being promoted through the United States, and similar concepts in Australia, and Europe, having that data, is going to be really essential.

[stoogest]

Interesting discussion. To me this is the first time I've actually seen a 3rd party utilise Flickr photos for their own purposes. It's so easy to just tick the box saying that you agree to all the t&c's assuming that 'she'll be right' or 'why would anyone care about my photos on flickr'... Reinforces the importance of making an informed decision.

Andrew.

[Kym]

IT hat on.... some thoughts and observations

1. EXIF can be edited (very easily) and offers no protection

2. Some form of DRM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) is needed to truly protect images. i.e. a digital signature, in that your public key is needed to view the image (after it is encoded by a private key) which proves ownership

3. All DRM systems can be beaten by the technically adept, but are getting harder to beat

4. DRM will creep into consumer generated content in the next 10 years

5. Watermarks and low-res images on the 'net are your best bet for now

[maccaroneski]

For those that want to check:

http://www.tineye.com/

For the record I have no problem with Flickr's TOS - as Xenedis points out there is no problem (IMO) that extends any further to those you might have making images available on the net that is specific or endemic to Flickr.

I'm also not sure as to where Flickr's associated entities enters the picture on my reading of the extracted TOS, but again as Xenedis notes, it's a moot point.

Agreeing with you twice in one post Johnno - I'm going soft... :)

[Xenedis]

Agreeing with you twice in one post Johnno

This is obviously an outrage.


I'm going soft... :)

That's way more information than I needed to hear.