# Is Flickr really ignoring our © and selling our pictures?



## Paul M (Aug 1, 2008)

I was on another site and saw this link. It gave some very interesting reading and food for thought. I am closing my flickr acct due to this. If anyone knows of other sites that offer free sharing space and maybe pruducts for sale, please post it in this thread.

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2008/07/07/how-every-flickr-photo-ended-up-on-sale-this-weekend/


----------



## reg (Aug 1, 2008)

I don't know, but the least you could do is more research before just posting someone's blog link and taking it as total gospel, to the point of linking to it in your signature.


----------



## bigalbest (Aug 1, 2008)

Ya no kidding I would be thrilled if they stole some of my copyrighted work. Then I could charge them more. No, I don't think Getty (the owner of flickr) will be stealing anyone's work and it's funny how many crappy images are watermarked as if.


----------



## Paul M (Aug 1, 2008)

reg said:


> I don't know, but the least you could do is more research before just posting someone's blog link and taking it as total gospel, to the point of linking to it in your signature.


 
Ok I see sarcasm is the way of the land here being you are the second one to reply to one of my posts this way. Ok here it is. I asked a question in the title of this thread and was hoping people that read it would "help" either support what I read or prove it wrong. I don't take anything as "gospel" but I do think I can link what I want, in my signature if it will help those that are interested. If I found the evidence supporting or refuting the information on that blog (which I found the same way posted on www.nikonians.org), why would I share it here knowing I would get sarcasm from people? 
Now I know why there are more lurkers than posters. Some people are nervous to post with this type of "interaction".


----------



## reg (Aug 1, 2008)

Paul M said:


> I don't take anything as "gospel" but I do think I can link what I want, in my signature if it will help those that are interested.



It won't help anybody if it's a lie.



Paul M said:


> If I found the evidence supporting or refuting the information on that blog (which I found the same way posted on www.nikonians.org), why would I share it here knowing I would get sarcasm from people?



Since you *don't* have any evidence, let's wait until you do to answer that.


----------



## bigalbest (Aug 1, 2008)

Paul M said:


> Ok I see sarcasm is the way of the land here being you are the second one to reply to one of my posts this way. Ok here it is. I asked a question in the title of this thread and was hoping people that read it would "help" either support what I read or prove it wrong. I don't take anything as "gospel" but I do think I can link what I want, in my signature if it will help those that are interested. If I found the evidence supporting or refuting the information on that blog (which I found the same way posted on www.nikonians.org), why would I share it here knowing I would get sarcasm from people?
> Now I know why there are more lurkers than posters. Some people are nervous to post with this type of "interaction".



I think it's a little strange that your screen name here is Paul M while your link goes to a site by Jim Goldstein?


----------



## Paul M (Aug 1, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> I think it's a little strange that your screen name here is Paul M while your link goes to a site by Jim Goldstein?


 
errrrr simple (maybe too simple), but I'll type slow so you can understand....

I found that thread on nikonians.org and thought if people here saw it, they may be able to prove it true or false. So, I posted the same link they posted over there. Psssst...the link isn't to my page. I hope you understand it now. (It's time for you to re-read the original post at the top of this screen).

Since you don't want to read the link on the original post (someone's blog), I will jump start the research with this link:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/07/10/is-flickr-letting-down-its-users/

If anyone can assist in the research, I for one am still curious. For those waiting for me to do the research and post the results for the benefit of the lazy? Hold your breath please


----------



## reg (Aug 1, 2008)

Paul M said:


> For those waiting for me to do the research and post the results for the benefit of the lazy? Hold your breath please



You started this thread - I for one generally expect that when someone posts a thread they'll have something productive to say, not just a link and basically saying "Discuss." 

Who's the one being lazy?


----------



## Paul M (Aug 1, 2008)

reg said:


> You started this thread - I for one generally expect that when someone posts a thread they'll have something productive to say, not just a link and basically saying "Discuss."
> 
> Who's the one being lazy?


 
My "productive statement" was actually the question in the Title/Subject line that attracted you to view the post. So it successfully caught your eye. I originally said I read the information on another site and I again "contributed" by asking a question/statement which again was ignored. _If anyone knows of other sites that offer free sharing space and maybe products for sale, please post it in this thread. _The link was to basically show _why _I am looking for another site/service.

So far, all we have covered is useless bickering and debate on who's blog was posted, what's the correlation, why I link it in my signature, and why I even posted the question. Is this *your *idea of something productive to say?


----------



## bigalbest (Aug 2, 2008)

Paul M said:


> errrrr simple (maybe too simple), but I'll type slow so you can understand....
> 
> I found that thread on nikonians.org and thought if people here saw it, they may be able to prove it true or false. So, I posted the same link they posted over there. Psssst...the link isn't to my page. I hope you understand it now. (It's time for you to re-read the original post at the top of this screen).
> 
> ...



I guess I wasn't clear, but I was talking about the link in your sig that says "my flickr". Is it really your flickr Paul M or Jim Goldstein or whatever your name is?


----------



## Paul M (Aug 2, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> I guess I wasn't clear, but I was talking about the link in your sig that says "my flickr". Is it really your flickr Paul M or Jim Goldstein or whatever your name is?


 
I guess I am misunderstanding the question here as you are giving partial information....I will post in this thread my "signature" and you can point out where I claim the FLICKR link is mine....


My *flickr* will be cancelled soon. Click link to see why.


As I read it, and meant it to be READ, it says MY FLICKR ACCT WILL BE CANCELLED SOON. CLICK THE LINK TO SEE WHY. (the only link there is the one that says flickr) and guess what you get when you click on it....
I know, it's too hard for you to guess....I'll tell you...You get the post telling WHY I am cancelling my flickr account.

I see you and reg are not able to help. So, here is my last attempt to explain my signature to you (which is lame in itself) I have "fixed" the very confusing, mind boggling, thread stealing concept of my signature and link problem in hopes that we can go forward and address my original concern.

(_If anyone knows of other sites that offer free sharing space and maybe pruducts for sale, please post it in this thread_) 

From here on out, I will just watch the thread in hopes someone will post something of actual value.

Now I remember why my kids are always monitored when using the computer


----------



## bigalbest (Aug 2, 2008)

I guess the real issue is not the link you have now edited to read correctly, it is really our (and the accomplished Mr. Goldsteins) different interpretations of what flickr is and should be used for. I use flickr to display photos of a personal nature for the purpose of linking, and conveying my ability as a photographer to potential customers. If your stuff is that good it's getting stolen on a regular basis maybe it's time to start displaying differently and marketing to the individuals or companies involved instead of making a huge issue out of it. I would be willing to bet the door might be open just a little and opportunity knocking at that point. Something to think about, and I'm not trying to be insulting I just come off that way over the internet.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 2, 2008)

It is a well known fact for years that sites such as flickr do not really help people being aware of copyright issues.

I would not go as far as the author of that link and implicitly say that they encourage copyright infringement, but at least they do not really help to prevent it and make it easy.


----------



## Paul M (Aug 2, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> It is a well known fact for years that sites such as flickr do not really help people being aware of copyright issues.
> 
> I would not go as far as the author of that link and implicitly say that they encourage copyright infringement, but at least they do not really help to prevent it and make it easy.


 
Thanks Alex. I am/was a new flickr member and was not aware of their "procedures". I thought it was pretty much safe when I saw many people using their service. I appreciate your input which sounds like a logical synopsis of the 2 articles I found.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 2, 2008)

Paul M said:


> Thanks Alex. I am/was a new flickr member and was not aware of their "procedures". I thought it was pretty much safe when I saw many people using their service. I appreciate your input which sounds like a logical synopsis of the 2 articles I found.



but keep in mind that images can be "stolen" anywhere. So you are never really safe. The best protection is to post only low res images on the web. watermarks can be cropped away, but you cannot produce a large print from a low res image.


----------



## Paul M (Aug 2, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> but keep in mind that images can be "stolen" anywhere. So you are never really safe. The best protection is to post only low res images on the web. watermarks can be cropped away, but you cannot produce a large print from a low res image.


 
I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I usually put my watermark or copyright on my stuff and I put mediocre quality pictures online if not low res. Just enough to keep the honest guy...honest.

I am not paranoid nor am I posting the quality of Ansel Adams. With that said, I know they (who ever would copy the pictures) are not looking specifically for my work, but it just burns me up that _everyone's _work is in jeopardy. The total disregard for people's rights and what they agreed to upon initial sign-up of the service. 

Now, I am not talking about someone that goes to the site and sees something they like and take it because thats an individual situation and no one can watch the every move of every visitor. I am talking about the company making _everything _in their database available for anyone at any time. It's one thing to try to prevent this crime, it's another to assist in making and giving the tools for someone else to commit the crime.

Every company providing a service describes what to expect (usually in their TOS). I initially chose to agree to them in order to use their service until I heard about their blatant disregard to our agreement. So I made another choice, and that is to terminate my account/agreement.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 2, 2008)

I do understand that.

I never ever joined flickr or any similar site anyway 
Although, it is not bad for everyone, it depends what you expect of it.


----------



## Overread (Aug 2, 2008)

But what protections do you expect them to take?
As soon as you open a webpage the contents are downloaded to your computer - so even if they went for some flashy system that prevented right click copying, you could still just open your internet temp folder and get the photo (failing that there is good old printscreen).
They could limit access to a members only and assess each new prospective member, but then its not the service you are getting now - that is one which will allow you to share your works to the world. I think you have to accept that as soon as your photo is out in the world it can be copied and stolen - heck I could buy the photo off you and then scan it with a highdef scanner to resell.
All you can really do is upload a lowres version and apply your copywrite symbol (which incidently is not needed nor does it prevent theft (its not needed UK based at least as you get copywrite as soon as you press the shutter button) and it does not prevent theft as we have already explained). What you copywrite symbol does do is help you get possible notice on the net as people surf and find your works in the strangest of places - a link back to you the original.
I expect flickr, or photobucket of photoshack to provide me the means to show me works on the net - I accept what comes with that. If I were to find another selling my works on for their own gain I would sue as I am the only one with the digital negatives (those being my RAWs).
As for these companies tracking theft - I think its far too big a thing for a company like them to approach - certainly too big when you pay either nothing or a very small fee for the use of their site.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 4, 2008)

I left Flicker twice because I found my images were being used commercially or editorially without my permission or even giving me a photo credit.  After the first time I made sure I had all the privacy and protection options checked.  It still didn't stop the next thief.  The problem is that someone can always get around protection, and Flickr has become known as an easy place to steal from.  Plenty of corporations have been caught doing it; even the Wall Street Journal.  They know that the odds of getting caught are slim, and even if you do catch them, they just stop using the image and count on lawyers being too expensive for artists and photogs to hire.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 4, 2008)

I have heard and read a lot of bad think about Getty but have no person experience with them. What I have heard is that Getty is try to cornet the market by lowering the price for photo rights to publishers and in turn this means less money for the photographer. 

What I have read is that Getty is phishing Flickr for cheap new talent. That will be unaware the old pricing rates


----------

