| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
New York Times Blogger: Steal Flickr Photos
Max Waugh, Photographer
 |
Bothell | WA | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> Didn't see mention of this (sorry if I missed it), but I know everyone loves a juicy Copyright-related story.
The New York Times' "Gadgetwise" writer suggests that folks should download Flickr images and decorate their homes with them... and promptly gets lambasted in the user comments.
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/flickr-as-an-interior-decora... |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> There is a simple solution to this. You just put a big honking "Copyright XYZ" on the image. If someone wants to take a lo-res image that they would never pay for anyway, fine. What irks me more is sites who use images and figure just because they link back to the Flickr page, that covers them. Annoying.
And for those who ask, "Why Flickr?" I have had quite a few contacts through Flickr who bought images for their fair, VERY FAIR, value. |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | | Posted: 8:55 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> Just another example of people thinking "if its online it must be free"
Now - remember this - all you photog who were griping about the settlement against the woman stealing and distributing songs. I dont know why so many people here were willing to express outrage at the verdict but might think this writer is a bit out of line.
If you make your living doing things in the creative realm, especially digital realm, you should be standing up to fight things like this. In fact, it should make you mad as hell. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 9:38 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> Karl,
I didn't read the thread, but I'm guessing that the reaction to the jury verdict was based more on whether or not the punishment fit the crime instead of if her actions were illegal.
As for the Blogger, this part of his interview with the "legal expert" was rather interesting: "“There are a lot of parallels with what’s going on with Flickr,” Mr. Falzone said. “People are posting photographs and know very well that they are going to be viewed by people on a computer, and if someone wants to print a photo out that they see on Flickr to enjoy some other time and in some other place, that seems fairly analogous to what people did with the VCR.”"
Mr. Falzone is cherry-picking bits of court opinions. When the SCOTUS sided with Sony in "Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios" they used a multi-part justification. While it's true that the court used the fact that the recorded programming in question was broadcast free over the airwaves as _part_ of their decision, they also said that the "time-shifting" argument was an important element. Sony argued that the primary reason that people used their Betamax to tape programming off-the-air was to allow them to view it at a later time when it was more convenient to the viewer. There isn't an analogous argument with printing off copyrighted photos on Flickr in order to hang them on the wall. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 06.27.09 |
->> The Times' Assistant Managing Editor Michelle McNally responded to a reader's question regarding Ms. Zjawinski and her suggestion that people steal images off the web:
http://tinyurl.com/nytimesdamagecontrol
I wonder if the response from the Times would have been more visible had Ms. Zjawinski suggested that readers steal images directly from the Times' website. |
|
Grant Gartland, Photographer, Assistant
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:41 PM on 06.27.09 |
->> I know its missing the point, but why would people post high resolution images online on sites like Flickr, Pbase etc ???
Sure it makes sense if its for something like a lens or camera evalution and you want to let people download the original files, but otherwise it just leaves me scratching my head.
I'll see some really nice work on some of those sites many times the photographers have the original images. I guess if you don't care if people use them its fine, but Im sure as working photogrphers all of us here just can't see why you'd want to let people freely download something of value without any control over it.
I've put stuff on those sites before just to share with peers, but always downsized web versions, often with watermarks that have no real commerical value. To let people freely download all my fullsize images, even if I dont think it has value, just is something I'd never do.
If you post it online, someone can take it. Thats the bottom line. Sure there right click disable and a bunch of other things that can make it harder, but if someone wants it bad enough they can get it. SO, make sure anything your posting online is something your okay with someone having the ability to steal. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 06.27.09 |
| ->> I don't know why someone would bother stealing from Flickr when they can find plenty of great, full resolution royalty free stuff on microstock sites for a couple of bucks an image. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:27 PM on 06.27.09 |
| ->> $0 < $2 |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 8:49 AM on 06.28.09 |
| ->> David: it's the same reason that people would rather download a low bit-rate, poor quality rip of a CD than buy a higher quality download - or even the actual disc - for less than a dollar a song. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 06.28.09 |
->> " I know its missing the point, but why would people post high resolution images online on sites like Flickr, Pbase etc ???"
Pick one:
- They don't know any better.
- They don't care.
- They don't know how to downsize images and post-process for the web. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 06.30.09 |
->> Kevin/Chuck,
I was being sarcastic. Sorry if it wasn't clear... :-)
What I find interesting is flickr goes to the trouble of setting up tiering with respect to licensing (allowing people to tag an image "All Rights Reserved", for example). Yet above every single photo is the "Order a Print" button. This button shows up regardless of the type of license placed on the photograph.
And oh yeah...the photographer doesn't get any money from these print sales.. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|