peoples using your photos (tumblr)

[bigtwinky]

Its not just ranting, its very informative.

Great discussion in this thread! :thumbup:

 

[KmH]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.