# peoples using your photos (tumblr)



## DScience

Hi all,

So recently i've noticed a lot of my photos on Flickr being used by people on a website called *Tumblr*. 

Basically, it's a blogging site and people are posting my pics on their blog. They aren't claiming credit, and they even acknowledge that the photos aren't theirs, and they link them to my actual Flickr. 

I'm just curious if anyone else has encountered this, and what your feelings are about this.


----------



## benhasajeep

DScience said:


> Hi all,
> 
> So recently i've noticed a lot of my photos on Flickr being used by people on a website called *Tumblr*.
> 
> Basically, it's a blogging site and people are posting my pics on their blog. They aren't claiming credit, and they even acknowledge that the photos aren't theirs, and they link them to my actual Flickr.
> 
> I'm just curious if anyone else has encountered this, and what your feelings are about this.


 
Not sure how I feel about it.  But if they are not trying to make money with it.  Just reposting them.  Not sure that is any different than you posting them on a open based viewing site.  Now if they are using them in a way that disturbs you.  You could go to tumblr and ask they be removed.  But that would get to be a pain.  Do you put a © and name on them?  At least your getting your name out there.


----------



## Rekd

Should be good advertising for you.


----------



## bigtwinky

There was another website that used flickr to get images.  I forget the name, but they were a type of travel website that had info on various cities and would hit flickr to get photos of the areas they want.

They would send you a note saying your photo was shortlisted and then another one if its chosen.

The difference is that they make money off their site... so they are using my photos (for free) to make money.  Sure, they mentionned the photographer name and if someone clicks on the image it links back to flickr, but from what I saw, the pictures scrolled by fast.

Tumblr seems like just an information page.  I would be up to allow people to use my images on there, as long as they don't make money.


----------



## rocdoc

My pics show up on different similar sites all the time. Since I don't think any of them are really that great and don't make a living off it, I am not too worried, but I do feel a bit uncomfortable. As long as they link to your flickr stream and you get credit there is no problem though - after all you make them public on flickr, there is no law against anyone linking to any public content. If on the other hand they publish your photos on a news site or anything else without linking to your page, they should ask your permission.


----------



## bigtwinky

I would also expect these people to ask to use your photo before just using it.  Common curtesy (which not many people have these days, they figure if its on the web, its fair game)


----------



## itznfb

This is my primary reason for not using Flickr and I'm shocked that so many photographers still view Flickr as a valid repository for their work. Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr. There are so many applications that spider Flickr as if it were a free stock photo site that there is a high chance that one your photos or more is on someone's website somewhere without your knowledge. These apps just crawl through Flickr and pull a crapload of results matching a given search criteria and that's it, the user picks one and now it's on their site/blog. They use Flickrs own API and Flickr actually encourages this. 

I only had about 40 photos on Flickr and every single one of them I found on at least 2 sites.

Here's how easy to implement into your own little search engine: http://www.flickr.com/services/api/flickr.photos.search.html

Flickr is a plague to the photography community.


----------



## Rekd

(quoted for posterity)


itznfb said:


> Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr.



Wait... what?? Is that a typo?? Wow. 

On a serious note: The only stuff of mine _they_ can get from flickr is the stuff I want them to get. You know, the stuff that's NOT PRIVATE!!?? :er:


----------



## GeneralBenson

itznfb said:


> Flickr is a plague to the photography community.



It's so true.  It drives me nuts when I see professional photogs who have/encourage flickr.  What people don't realize, is that blogging and web stuff is quickly becoming the new form of media, and all of this image usage is something that people used to have to pay photographers for in print.  Now web publishers can just surf the web and and get free images from places like flickr, or dirt cheap images from places like iStock.  It's all based of exploited non-professional photographers.  There are so many people taking digital pictures these days, and uploading them to the web.  This all based on the fact, that somewhere in that myriad of crap are some decent images, and the people that took them probably don't care if anyone uses them, and don't realize that image usage is worth money.  It's exploitation, and there's no other way about it.


----------



## itznfb

About ATVs said:


> (quoted for posterity)
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... what?? Is that a typo?? Wow.
> 
> On a serious note: The only stuff of mine _they_ can get from flickr is the stuff I want them to get. You know, the stuff that's NOT PRIVATE!!?? :er:
Click to expand...


Wake up dude. I'm not trying to be insulting... but Flickr is a bad joke. With their open API it takes anyone with a little programming knowledge a couple hours to write a spidering engine that crawls all the photos and grabs whatever. Then they throw these search apps out on download sites and everyone uses them. It doesn't matter if they are private or not. Flickr does nothing to stop it. They even encourage the use of some of them. All my photos were private and everyone single one ended up either in a blog or on someone's site. One even ended up on a stock photo site.


----------



## DScience

Interesting responses from everyone. I guess I use Flickr not as a tool to advertise my photos. I'm more of the social community type, and I like the interaction that goes on between flickr friends. One thing I have changed is made it so people cannot download my images. Thus they can only view them at medium size. 

I guess if I was attempting to make money off of this hobby, I might worry more. But I agree with most of you that since they aren't using my photos for money, and the photos link back to my flickr, it's probably not a bad thing to have them out there. Plus, maybe someone out there is finding enjoyment out of my photos. If I can bring any bit of positivity into the world, i'm all for that.


----------



## Rekd

itznfb said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> 
> (quoted for posterity)
> 
> 
> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... what?? Is that a typo?? Wow.
> 
> On a serious note: The only stuff of mine _they_ can get from flickr is the stuff I want them to get. You know, the stuff that's NOT PRIVATE!!?? :er:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake up dude. I'm not trying to be insulting... but Flickr is a bad joke. With their open API it takes anyone with a little programming knowledge a couple hours to write a spidering engine that crawls all the photos and grabs whatever. Then they throw these search apps out on download sites and everyone uses them. It doesn't matter if they are private or not. Flickr does nothing to stop it. They even encourage the use of some of them. All my photos were private and everyone single one ended up either in a blog or on someone's site. One even ended up on a stock photo site.
Click to expand...


If that's the case, I'm sorry. 

Unfortunately I don't see it. If you could provide me with proof (that the APIs can take private photos without your permission) I will use that get my money back from them and jump on the **** flickr bandwagon.


----------



## itznfb

The API calls directly into Flickr backend repository. Direct linking won't work as far as I know. So if you pull the link from a search and try to link back to a private photo it won't work. I'm also not sure if you're able to pull full resolution photos or not as all of mine were uploaded at 800x530 and I just left it as that it a pretty tough res to print. However it works well for viewing online.

All the ones I've found of my own photos have since been removed. One good thing is I've never really had any push back from someone using my photo. They have all just taken it down without question.

The Flickr TOS does not protect you in any way but it does clearly state that they do not assume ownership of uploaded photos, but they do reserve the right to use them in any publicly accessible are of Flickr/Yahoo!


----------



## IgsEMT

*Didn't read above:
*Watermark it across, i.e. upper left corner to bottom right corner. :thumbup:


----------



## itznfb

IgsEMT said:


> *Didn't read above:
> *Watermark it across, i.e. upper left corner to bottom right corner. :thumbup:



You could. I've never personally run into this but I hear stories from others about their watermarks actually being removed. I don't know why someone would go to all that trouble... spend as much time practicing photography as they do removing watermarks and they would probably be a good photographer.

However.... there are many reasons I had become frustrated with flickr and using just about every other service I've never run into these issues any where else. So not using flickr easily solves the issue for me. 

I understand people like flickr and that's fine... but people should know their open API is a hazard.

I'll end my ranting 
/rant


----------



## bigtwinky

Its not just ranting, its very informative.

Great discussion in this thread! :thumbup:


----------



## KmH

DScience said:


> One thing I have changed is made it so people cannot download my images. Thus they can only view them at medium size.


 You wish. They may have to work at it a little more but if it's online it's gettable.


----------



## KmH

bigtwinky said:


> I would also expect these people to ask to use your photo before just using it. Common curtesy (which not many people have these days, they figure if its on the web, its fair game)


 +1 here.  No asky, you and the host get a DMCA takedown notice as soon as the image theft is discovered.


----------



## DScience

KmH said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have changed is made it so people cannot download my images. Thus they can only view them at medium size.
> 
> 
> 
> You wish. They may have to work at it a little more but if it's online it's gettable.
Click to expand...



Oh yea, and please explain to me HOW they will do this. As I see it, the only way is for them to hack my account info on Flickr, and change my settings so that ANYONE can download my pictures. 

If there is another way, please explain. But if what I just said is THE way you are referring too, than I am not scared. LOL


----------



## Patrice

Posting any image on the web is pretty much the same as thumb tacking a bunch of prints on the bulletin board at the post office. Someone likes them then they will take it. Want your images to stay private then keep them closer to home. 

Just saying.


----------



## KmH

DScience said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DScience said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I have changed is made it so people cannot download my images. Thus they can only view them at medium size.
> 
> 
> 
> You wish. They may have to work at it a little more but if it's online it's gettable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea, and please explain to me HOW they will do this. As I see it, the only way is for them to hack my account info on Flickr, and change my settings so that ANYONE can download my pictures.
> 
> If there is another way, please explain. But if what I just said is THE way you are referring too, than I am not scared. LOL
Click to expand...

With your permission I can post your image, you named "Path Of Trees".

I took a screen shot of your Flickr home page, copied the image, opened it in CS4, resized it to 4x6 and increased the resolution to 300 ppi. I can do the same with "blowing in the wind", String of lights, Purple, Solitude, Fall to the ground, etc.


----------



## camz

Everytime I post a picture here or anywhere in the net I've cropped it smaller or different. Some folks had our shots posted in their site in the past so we sent them an a small resolution of the original crop which they didn't have and that settle the issue b/c we told them that it's so easy to prove that it's ours since they have the smaller version. They were nice enough to take it down(not mentioning their names)..

So sometimes watermarks don't preserve the proof of a shots origin(as you know it's easy to shop it out sometimes), reducing the crop size of your posted work will somewhat protect you from picture pirates in addition to the evidence that you have the higher resolution originals. But I say posting both watermarks and crop reduction works for me.


----------



## KenL

I use Flickr just for posting shots on forums and the images are usually not larger than 800 pixels wide which is not even enough for Windows wallpaper unless you use a very small monitor, so using them for anything commercial is a non-starter. Even using something like Genuine Fractals to enlarge these images can only go so far......

Whenever anyone has asked if they could use an image for wallpaper I say, "absolutely" and give them a larger version. 

I would not mind becoming known as that guy who never made a dime from his photos but they became famous.......not that there's any chance of that, but you get my point.


----------



## Felix0890

You know there's a "Blog This" button right on top of each of your photos right?  Once you click that button and actually blog it, the picture in the blog post will include a link back to your flickr page as well as redirect clickers back to your image on your photostream.   This is 100% within the scope of fair use.  

With that said, if you see it on a commercial website, that's not within the scope of fair use and then you can go ahead and ask them to take it down, sue them, or w/e suits you.  

Like others said, if you don't want your images being used for blogs and/or non-commercial use, don't put them on flickr to begin with (don't do this. I enjoy your pictures very much so ).  I'd just look at it as free advertising to your photostream.

Oh and yes, stealing your image even with "protection" enabled is very easy using the method KmH said.


----------



## Garbz

I haven't seen the actual page but from what I gather they are posting the picture (or even just a flickr link) and the link to the source page and saying it's not their's, is that right?

This sounds like fair use in every definition of the word. Ok so it may not follow the IEEE citation styles, but quite simply people are entitled to do this. If you don't want this kind of thing done (which I can't imagine any sane photographer not wanting) then quite simply don't publish an article. 

To me this sounds like a PhD complaining that someone cited his thesis. Providing they aren't claiming incorrectly it's their own work, and providing you with a bit of publicity in the process, what's not to like?




itznfb said:


> This is my primary reason for not using Flickr and I'm shocked that so many photographers still view Flickr as a valid repository for their work. Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr.


Is this a case of reading the words flickr, my photo, and [insert otherwebsite here] and just coming out to complain about how bad flickr is? What is being described here is not copyright infringement, infact it couldn't be further from copyright infringement.


----------



## itznfb

Garbz said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my primary reason for not using Flickr and I'm shocked that so many photographers still view Flickr as a valid repository for their work. Copyright infringement is almost encouraged on Flickr.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a case of reading the words flickr, my photo, and [insert otherwebsite here] and just coming out to complain about how bad flickr is? What is being described here is not copyright infringement, infact it couldn't be further from copyright infringement.
Click to expand...


How much acid did you take before writing this? Using someone elses work as your own is pretty much the definition of copyright infringement. Did you read anything else I said? In 10 years of photography on the web I've never had a single issue with any other site. Neither have any of the other 100 or so photographers I know. Myself, and every single photographer I know personally has had their photos ripped from flickr.

flickr created an API that I linked to earlier in this thread that allows back door access to all photos and they encourage it's use. Period. NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER PHOTO SITE DOES THIS.


----------



## Garbz

Except if you read the top where it is said "and they even acknowledge that the photos aren't theirs, and they link them to my actual Flickr" it seems to be a textbook definition of citing your source, and definitely NOT copyright infringement. 



Also their API does NOT I repeat NOT allow back door access to the site. To use the API you need a key that is linked to a user account. This key is emailed to the account holder when you request it. I use the API on my website http://www.garbz.com (the galleries load from the flickr profile and not my local machine). When I requested an API key against my login, it sent me your stock standard email confirmation notice before it handed it over.

That API call you linked to? It says quite clearly in bold on the top "Only photos visible to the calling user will be returned" which is linked to your api_key, which is linked to the account. When I do a lookup via PHP code all I get back is things linked in my account. I can search my photos, list my galleries, get my images, and nothing more.

Not one other photo site allows this, which is exactly why I use flickr to store my gallery photos (and also the google maps API for all my panoramas).


So... what  is stopping me write a quick script that searches random crap in photobucket and downloads all the resulting images? Or maybe I can do a search for "tiger" on DevArt, that I'm sure would return a heck of a lot of images from mgRoberts all for my taking.


----------



## FrankLamont

The reason why people link from Flickr is due to Creative Commons being so common on the website. Many assume that since some allow their photos for non-commercial purposes, they can thus use any image for their liking.


----------



## Torus34

I use Flickr(r) as a 'way station' for images I wish to post on the 'net.  I've noted my specific use in the comments section.  That notice is intended to let folks who might wander by know that I'm not looking for 'comments' or 'friends' or 'whatevers'.  The page is a convenience for me -- nothing more.

That said, I do not take pictures for money.  I take them for use as decoration in my home.  I have absolutely no reason to restrict their use by others.  In fact, I would be faintly amused if someone 'stole' a picture of mine from Flickr(r).  It would not bother me in the least if they claimed it as their own, either.  It might broaden my smile, though.  I've no ego tied up with the images.  I don't 'watermark' them, either.


----------



## itznfb

Garbz said:


> Except if you read the top where it is said "and they even acknowledge that the photos aren't theirs, and they link them to my actual Flickr" it seems to be a textbook definition of citing your source, and definitely NOT copyright infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> Also their API does NOT I repeat NOT allow back door access to the site. To use the API you need a key that is linked to a user account. This key is emailed to the account holder when you request it. I use the API on my website Test Page for Apache Installation (the galleries load from the flickr profile and not my local machine). When I requested an API key against my login, it sent me your stock standard email confirmation notice before it handed it over.
> 
> That API call you linked to? It says quite clearly in bold on the top "Only photos visible to the calling user will be returned" which is linked to your api_key, which is linked to the account. When I do a lookup via PHP code all I get back is things linked in my account. I can search my photos, list my galleries, get my images, and nothing more.
> 
> Not one other photo site allows this, which is exactly why I use flickr to store my gallery photos (and also the google maps API for all my panoramas).
> 
> 
> So... what  is stopping me write a quick script that searches random crap in photobucket and downloads all the resulting images? Or maybe I can do a search for "tiger" on DevArt, that I'm sure would return a heck of a lot of images from mgRoberts all for my taking.



Yes anyone can write a script to crawl any site. But the difference is that flickr provides the resources to back door their own site and it's built into the api as a native call. You are just being incredibly naive to think these functions aren't used and exploited. The access key's you need can be downloaded through thousands of different methods. Many of which are completely legit.


----------



## Actor

DScience said:


> Hi all,
> 
> So recently i've noticed a lot of my photos on Flickr being used by people on a website called *Tumblr*.
> 
> Basically, it's a blogging site and people are posting my pics on their blog. They aren't claiming credit, and they even acknowledge that the photos aren't theirs, and they link them to my actual Flickr.
> 
> I'm just curious if anyone else has encountered this, and what your feelings are about this.


If I understand you correctly they have not actually copied your photos but have posted a link to a place where you published them.  I don't think this qualifies as infringement.

Suppose you put your photo on a billboard on Highway 61.  It would not be an infringement if I were then to post "Hey, there's an interesting photo on a billboard out on Highway 61."  Flickr is the electronic equivalent of a billboard on the electronic superhighway.  You are putting it where the world at large can see it.  You shouldn't be offended if someone else tells the world where it is.


----------



## ANDS!

> I don't think this qualifies as infringement.



This isn't going to stop the Hyperventilation Brigade from going ape****.  Garbz and Felix pretty much nailed it.  When you submit to Flickrs your photos, are you handing them over for infringement; no of course not.  There was an article about an ad-agency who THOUGHT they could use a photo from Flickr that was Creative Commons listed, but they still infringed on the photo itself AND the individual IN the photo (who I believe was not related to the picture taker).  Suffice to say legal-hilarity was had by all.

What the OP described is nothing new.  It is VASTLY different from the sites asking for free photographs for their e-books which are most definitely meant to drive business.  A blog is not necessarily such an entity.


----------



## Garbz

itznfb said:


> You are just being incredibly naive to think these functions aren't used and exploited. The access key's you need can be downloaded through thousands of different methods. Many of which are completely legit.



Erm what part of key generated against a specific account do you not understand? Tell you what, try sign up for a flickr account and generate a key twice. You'll get an error the second time and have to contact flickr support just like I did when I lost my key. 

You're singling out of flickr quite unfairly by firstly not understanding the feature which you criticise and then secondly ignoring the fact that there are much easier ways to actually steal data (how about use an open google api to trawl flickr, it's probably faster!).

I'm sorry to hear that you had pictures ripped off, but it has everything to do with the popularity of the platform rather than the non-existent "back-door". Just like Windows has the most virus attacks because it's the most popular platform.


----------



## MarkoKulik

Like anything else there's pros and cons.

Flickr is a great way to show off your photographs because so many people use the site. You can gain inspiration, knowledge and friends. That said, of course any photo can be ripped off on flickr.

But it can also be ripped off on any site on the Net....

So IMO it boils down to this; Do you want to show your photos online?

If the answer is yes - you need to accept that some people will rip it off.
If the answer in NO, do not post work work online. Period.
Your work will be totally safe, but next to no one will see it.

Personally I want people to see my photography but i never upload images greater than 120k or so...that way they look like crap when printed.


----------



## Felix0890

MarkoKulik said:


> That said, of course any photo can be ripped off on flickr.



What he needs to get, though, is that he is not getting ripped off.  It's quite the opposite.  If he checks his Flickr stats, I'm pretty sure his visitor count spiked soon after his pics were linked on that blog (assuming the blogger is semi-popular).  The guy linked back to his account and gave him 100% credit.  He should be thanking the blogger, not getting pissed about it.

Next time you think you're getting ripped off, answer the following:

Is the person taking credit or giving me due credit and linking back to my site?
Did the person download and re-upload the image via his own site?
Is the person gaining money from having my picture up there, whether it's credited to me or not?
Is the person distributing my image around the net like hotcakes?

If the answer is no to all of them, stop complaining and thank the person. People will whine about anything these days. :er:


----------



## itznfb

Garbz said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being incredibly naive to think these functions aren't used and exploited. The access key's you need can be downloaded through thousands of different methods. Many of which are completely legit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm what part of key generated against a specific account do you not understand? Tell you what, try sign up for a flickr account and generate a key twice. You'll get an error the second time and have to contact flickr support just like I did when I lost my key.
> 
> You're singling out of flickr quite unfairly by firstly not understanding the feature which you criticise and then secondly ignoring the fact that there are much easier ways to actually steal data (how about use an open google api to trawl flickr, it's probably faster!).
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you had pictures ripped off, but it has everything to do with the popularity of the platform rather than the non-existent "back-door". Just like Windows has the most virus attacks because it's the most popular platform.
Click to expand...


I think you're kind of missing the point. The developers that write these apps that integrate with flickr don't need more than one key. They write their app with their legit key and whether it crawls private content or not flickr doesn't care. As I said before, I'm not 100% sure if one is able to get the full res image or only the 800x whatever resized preview.

I single out flickr because they provide an API that inherently has too much access and way more flexibility than it really needs. They should be using separate APIs available to different groups of people. But again that comes back to the point that they really don't care.

Yes you can use googles search API to crawl flickr but googles API won't have direct calls in the authentication methods and photo privacy methods. These shouldn't exist in the flickr API either. I can see using them on your own site, but they shouldn't be publicly available.

At any rate... I don't store commercial photos anywhere publicly anymore. I just wanted people to be aware that from the experiences I've seen first hand flickr is a haven photo theft. If it works for you great, keep using it.


----------



## Buckster

1. Officially register copyright on them.
2. When you find someone violating your copyright, printscreen / save-as the page and get a witness.
3. Contact a copyright attorney.
4. Take legal action.
5. Profit.


----------



## itznfb

I thought there were only 3 steps to profit?

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit


----------



## Buckster

itznfb said:


> I thought there were only 3 steps to profit?
> 
> Phase 1: Collect Underpants
> Phase 2: ?
> Phase 3: Profit


The ? in 2 can actually be multiple steps.


----------



## Garbz

/edit: Meh nevermind. It's clear that we'll permanently be of two different opinions about this.


----------



## KmH

Flickr users might want to read this.


----------



## Joves

KmH said:


> Flickr users might want to read this.


Now that was good. To me anything that is free always has a cost. Also for those that do not know you dont have to register for Copyright protection. Go here and you will have the info you need. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ I suggest you bookmark it for future reference.


----------



## DScience

Felix0890 said:


> What he needs to get, though, is that he is not getting ripped off.  It's quite the opposite.  If he checks his Flickr stats, I'm pretty sure his visitor count spiked soon after his pics were linked on that blog (assuming the blogger is semi-popular).  The guy linked back to his account and gave him 100% credit.  He should be thanking the blogger, not getting pissed about it.
> 
> Next time you think you're getting ripped off, answer the following:
> 
> Is the person taking credit or giving me due credit and linking back to my site?
> Did the person download and re-upload the image via his own site?
> Is the person gaining money from having my picture up there, whether it's credited to me or not?
> Is the person distributing my image around the net like hotcakes?
> 
> If the answer is no to all of them, stop complaining and thank the person. People will whine about anything these days. :er:




What are you talking about? Did you even ready my posts? No where did I say I was pissed and I was NOT complaining in anyway. In fact, I am pleased that these photos were used by people blogging because it did increase traffic to my Flickr. 

Geez, I feel like i'm talking to 6th graders on here!


----------



## DScience

itznfb said:


> I think you're kind of missing the point. The developers that write these apps that integrate with flickr don't need more than one key. They write their app with their legit key and whether it crawls private content or not flickr doesn't care. As I said before, I'm not 100% sure if one is able to get the full res image or only the 800x whatever resized preview.
> 
> I single out flickr because they provide an API that inherently has too much access and way more flexibility than it really needs. They should be using separate APIs available to different groups of people. But again that comes back to the point that they really don't care.
> 
> Yes you can use googles search API to crawl flickr but googles API won't have direct calls in the authentication methods and photo privacy methods. These shouldn't exist in the flickr API either. I can see using them on your own site, but they shouldn't be publicly available.
> 
> At any rate... I don't store commercial photos anywhere publicly anymore. I just wanted people to be aware that from the experiences I've seen first hand flickr is a haven photo theft. If it works for you great, keep using it.



Hey itznfb, i just noticed you are also a part of xtremesystems forums! COol! )


----------



## itznfb

DScience said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're kind of missing the point. The developers that write these apps that integrate with flickr don't need more than one key. They write their app with their legit key and whether it crawls private content or not flickr doesn't care. As I said before, I'm not 100% sure if one is able to get the full res image or only the 800x whatever resized preview.
> 
> I single out flickr because they provide an API that inherently has too much access and way more flexibility than it really needs. They should be using separate APIs available to different groups of people. But again that comes back to the point that they really don't care.
> 
> Yes you can use googles search API to crawl flickr but googles API won't have direct calls in the authentication methods and photo privacy methods. These shouldn't exist in the flickr API either. I can see using them on your own site, but they shouldn't be publicly available.
> 
> At any rate... I don't store commercial photos anywhere publicly anymore. I just wanted people to be aware that from the experiences I've seen first hand flickr is a haven photo theft. If it works for you great, keep using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey itznfb, i just noticed you are also a part of xtremesystems forums! COol! )
Click to expand...


:thumbup: My hobbies constantly jump back and forth between computers and photography!


----------



## burstintoflame81

It is a common misconception that as long as you are not using something commercially, that it is safe under "Fair Use". Fair Use only covers scholarly non-profit work. Simply posting pictures because you "Like them" and want to decorate your blog is NOT Fair USE. Most sites that host peoples blogs and website create revenue from traffic and advertising. So technically by posting your pictures they may be attracting more traffic for a site that is technically making money. Also, the US Copyright Office uses several factors of determining fair use. One of which is, 

"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work "

Technically, unless for non-profit scholarly work ( for instance, using them on educational forums like this one, geared at learning about photographic techniques ) you could argue that spreading your picture makes it more easily accessible to anyone and that you can not sell as many prints because it lowers the demand.

Of course all of this would require you to have your copyright registered and not have agreed to any TOS that relinquishes your rights. Also, a link to your picture or site is different as someone already stated. They are simply directing people to you, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## KmH

Unfortunately, TPF is *not* an educational forum.

It is a for profit commercial enterprise. These discussion forums are simply the vehicle that provides the framework for all the attached advertising.

As of a moment ago:

Currently Active Users: 766 (145 members and 588 guests and 33 Spiders) 

Most users ever online was 3,039, 04-27-2006 at 07:29 AM.


Note the number of guests, out number the members by 4 to 1.


----------



## DRoberts

It's the internet...If you have photos you don't want stolen don't put post them. Hmmmm...have we not figured this out yet? Flickr is a glorified photo album. If you want security for your photos get your own website and secure it, as well as clearly marking your photos.
While it may be bad juju's to to steal a photo, so are about a million other things that happen online everyday. But they happen, and will continue to happen and everyone knows this.
 If you put your work out there, knowing this, then how can you complain when it happens? At this point it's just as much your fault for uploading to sites such as flickr as it is anyone elses fault for using them.


----------



## burstintoflame81

KmH said:


> Unfortunately, TPF is *not* an educational forum.
> 
> It is a for profit commercial enterprise. These discussion forums are simply the vehicle that provides the framework for all the attached advertising.
> 
> As of a moment ago:
> 
> Currently Active Users: 766 (145 members and 588 guests and 33 Spiders)
> 
> Most users ever online was 3,039, 04-27-2006 at 07:29 AM.
> 
> 
> Note the number of guests, out number the members by 4 to 1.


 
So is every major university in the country. There is always going to be a gray area, but I think one could argue that this is a forum aimed at the study of photography. Everything has to pay the bills somehow. The point I was making with a blog is that there is no editorial/scholarly work, its the online version of someones Journal. Although, I am sure that there are some blogs that could probably make a strong argument to fair use. The main point is that fair use isn't as cut and dry as "they are selling my pictures or not selling my pictures"

Good point though BTW


----------



## matfoster

something that puzzles me with tumblr and maybe other web 2.0 websites is when you sign up/login the page is http:// not https://. how are these passwords kept secure nowadays? anyone know?


----------



## KmH

You might find the book *Crypto* by Steven Levy an interesting read.  It's about how HTTPS (public key encryption and the RSA algorithm) came to be.


----------



## LBPhotog

Buckster said:


> 1. Officially register copyright on them.
> 2. When you find someone violating your copyright, printscreen / save-as the page and get a witness.
> 3. Contact a copyright attorney.
> 4. Take legal action.
> 5. Profit.



In the State of New Hampshire it takes $50 and three "reproducible copies" of your logo to register it with the state ... it's the best $50 I've ever spent because, really, I need someone to violate my copyright ONCE and I'll probably get my money back ...


----------

