Is Flickr really ignoring our © and selling our pictures?

[Paul M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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