DISQUS

SlingWords aka Joan Reeves · 1 year ago

Jonathan, I thought I was pretty savvy about copyright issues and licensing. I'm one of the few people who actually reads licensing agreements and terms of service. I don't Flickr for the reasons you've cited. However, I have learned so much from reading your blog. You articulately translate complex information into easily assimilated facts. Thank you. Well done. Joan Reeves

Jonathan Bailey · 1 year ago

I have very little doubt that you ARE indeed very savvy with these issues. As someone who reads licensing agreements and pays attention to these types of issues, you are already in the 99% percentile of all users. Even I'll admit that there are some sites, especially those where I'm not putting up my content, where I don't thoroughly read the TOS. It is, however, a bad habit and I do admit that.

However, I am glad that the site has been able to help you and has been useful. Thank you very much for the encouragement. If there are any issues you'd like me to address, please let me know!

Joe Clark · 1 year ago

Whoa, hold on here. There are lots of permissible uses of all-rights-reserved content via an API – RSS and machine-tag harvesting (à la Adactio) come to mind. You’re American; don’t make me remind you of fair use.

I don’t know what you mean by “embedding,” and you probably don’t, either. Images are presented on Web pages using IMG elements (or, if you really insist, OBJECT, but that won’t work in the real world). As such images are not part of a Web page, but are called from elsewhere, like elsewhere in the same server directory or from another site, and assembled together with the HTML, CSS, and JS output to render the page. Your blog may have a sidebar with all your recent Flickr photos, and that sidebar might even be animated, but if so it’s some kind of iframe and/or JavaScript and/or Flash application; in that last case you could view the Flash application as a movie and use the (non-HTML) EMBED tag to put it on the page.

But there is no way, via Flickr or otherwise, to “embed” a photograph on a Web page like the Sword in the Stone. It doesn’t happen.

Additionally, your suggestion to walk Flickr users through a menu of options after the manner of Creative Commons is merely a way to induce people to erroneously license their photos under Creative Commons without full intention and consent. It would be cynical of me to view this as another example of “scratch a copyright activist, find someone who wants copyright abolished and replaced with Creative Commons.” All rights reserved *is* the default for a copyrightable work and should stay that way *unless* you really know what you’re doing and want some other licence.

Jonathan Bailey · 1 year ago

There's no need to remind me of fair use. I based the idea of using thumbnails only in the API on ARR images in the Google images ruling, which put that type of use deep into the safe category. However, it is very likely that someone who chooses ARR will not want their content in the API. If I am wrong and most of the people who do choose ARR do want their content in the API, then that should be changed. It was just an example and a best guess at intentions. I admit that.

However, it is interesting that you mention tag harvesting and RSS feeds as those are things that do not necessarily require the republication of the image.

Regarding embedding, I am using the term in the exact same context as Flickr does. That is precisely to avoid confusion. Technically correct or not, it is the common term for the process of grabbing HTML code to place an element hosted on another domain and/or site and display it on yours. If you look at Flickr, you'll find they use the term "embed it" to describe the process of copying the HTML code and that is a commonly understood term.

Finally, I fail to see your last point but perhaps I didn't make it clear what I was proposing here. I didn't mean that they should use the actual CC code, but use that style where you ask reality-based questions that are easy to understand and have direct answers. If the process was written and designed well, it would default to ARR the same as now and make it clear the consequences of selecting another license.

You are right that ARR is the default license, as it should be, but the other default settings enable and encourage uses that are often incompatible with the wishes. The goal of Flickr right now should be to mesh the licensing terms with how the image is actually used.

On that note, if the most conservative license setting, ARR, is the default, then shouldn't the most conservative API setting, meaning disabled, be the default as well? It would seem to be the most fair as turning that on also means giving up rights to your work via an implied license.

Just to be clear though, I certainly don't think copyright should be replaces by Creative Commons. First off, that would be impossible since CC was a system built upon copyright law, meaning that it relies upon the current legal setup to work, and second I feel artists should have the choice. However, I feel those choices should be made as simple and as clear as possible.

Going back to the original point. If I get confused trying to license my images via Flickr, what chance do most others have?

Alpha · 1 year ago

I think most people who choose ARR are perfectly OK when their photos are accessed through the API by tools which respect Flickr's Terms of Service. Having something as "all rights reserved" doesn't necessarily mean people don't want it to appear in third party sites. Same goes for the embedding and/or sharing.

One correction in your overview of the options - hiding your photostream from site-wide searches on flickr.com does not make your photos private, they are still accessible by everyone who visits your photostream or through the group pools in which the photo is posted (or by typing the URL of the photo directly in the browser). A "private image" on Flickr means an image accessible only by its owner, when logged in.

I agree the account pages are quite overloaded with options that seem to overlap each other and you are right that many of them were introduced piece by piece but I'm not quite sure it would be a good idea to reduce and organize them in the way you suggest

Also, the "Print" option for me is clear enough because I am aware it's about using a service, not my own printer. It is useful and it also appears in photo set pages, where you are able to order books, albums, etc. It is not meant as a link to your own printer because hopefully most people know how to print a photo this way.

Of course, I've been using Flickr for a lot of time and there is a chance my experience skews my judgment about how clear those guidelines are but for me they are clear enough.

The only thing I find really misleading is the option list for choosing a license where ARR is explained as "No license" (probably they mean "No CC License"). This is absolutely misleading. Most of my images have a CC license attached but on some of the few which are ARR I've received comments from users like "Put a license to this photo if you don't want it to be stolen by someone."

Jonathan Bailey · 1 year ago

Though I agree with you that many of the people who select ARR on their Flickr images are comfortable with use of the images through the API, I submit that it may be another flaw with the licensing system as many, if not most, of those people might be better served by a CC license. I can't speak for those who I have not met, but I suspect that they use ARR in many cases because it is the default, not because they have thoroughly thought out their licensing.

Thanks for the correction on the use of private images. I can see where I was mistaken and will correct this article shortly.

I admit to being a bit simple with the print option, but I was thinking more of people like my mother, who is considering posting some of her paintings and images of her crafts on the Web. The option may be clear to Flickr users but to outsiders and newcomers who aren't familiar with the system, the term "print" has a different meaning. It might be nitpicky, but I felt it worth mentioning.

I hadn't thought about the use of the term "No License" when selecting the license for your image, you are right that it is VERY confusing and I can understand why you get those comments. I agree that "No CC License" or just simply saying "All Rights Reserved" would be better. "No License" is about the WORST thing one can say there.

In the end, what's important to me is not that my solution is the best, but that these issues get addressed and quick. I'll admit that my system has flaws, especially since it came from someone familiar with licensing, but I hope that it was a step in the right direction.

I hope that others, such as yourself, can take it even farther, that's why I put it out there...

cipals15 · 1 year ago

Yeah. Licensing online is so hard but some people use it as marketing tool. Place a signature on the original image and voila! You will be known if more and more people download it.

Jonathan Bailey · 1 year ago

The only problem with the signature idea is that many do not wish to clutter their images with one. I agree it is the most effective means of protection but it is a tradeoff between security and beauty.