If your photos are on flickr, you need to know this

[FlyingSquirrel]

In case you are not aware, if you have photos on flickr, and the license of your image(s) is set to anything other than "all rights reserved," flickr is selling those photos as wall art. So, if you don't want them to be selling your photos and making money off of your work without your express permission and without you seeing a penny of it, you need to make sure all of your photos are set to have the "all rights reserved" license. I believe that is the default setting, but just to be sure, you may want to go into the settings in your account and run a batch license update for all images. Flickr's gall is flabbergasting to me.

BTW when I found out about this today, I went to some of my photos and there was a "wall art" option there, and I freaked out. But then I realized I was logged in, so I decided to log out of the site and then view it. The wall art option was gone, so now I know my photos are safe.

edit- regarding my last sentence..I should clarify "safe from flickr selling them without my express permission" ..but not safe from illegal use and theft of anyone on the web that feels like stealing them and using them for their any desire.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the information, I've seen a few photo sharing websites changing their policies lately.

[JR1]

Not surprised, happens all over, put a watermark on them across the middle

[Donald]

... you need to make sure all of your photos are set to have the "all rights reserved" license.

How do you check that on Flickr? I think I have that done, but can't remember how to check it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

The steps to update your flickr license:

Log in to the flickr site
Click your avatar at top right to show your account menu
Click "Settings"
Click the "privacy & permissions" tab
Scroll down to "Defaults for new uploads"
Find "What license will your content have"
It will show you there what the default is.
Since I can't remember if I ever changed that, I decided to be extra safe, so I clicked the blue "edit" link to the right of "What license will your content have" and then the second paragraph of text on the resulting page says "This will apply to everything you upload from now on. You can also change the license on all your existing public content in a batch if you wish." I clicked that "batch" link and set it to "None (All rights reserved) and then clicked the button to apply that to all of my work.

[Donald]

Excellent. Thank you, Matt. Job done.

[inkista]

In case you are not aware, if you have photos on flickr, and the license of your image(s) is set to anything other than "all rights reserved," flickr is selling those photos as wall art. ...

Actually, untrue. It's only the CC licenses that allowed for commercial use that were being used (there's a reason CC comes in six flavors, three of which explicitly withhold commercial usage rights). And, anyway, they've stopped now.

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/12/18...ickr-wall-art/

But, hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good scaremongering.

Honestly. Doesn't anybody know what Creative Commons licensing is?! It's the artistic world's version of open source, for cryin' out loud. Of course you lose intellectual property rights when you apply it. Being all indignant when someone takes advantage of your giving your IP away for free strikes me as.... well, being more than a little naive.

[IzzieK]

Thanks for the warning.

I have a Flickr account but only because it came with my internet access. I only upload my image for a week then pull it down after friends and relatives had viewed them, but then you can never be careful enough. Same with my presentation on YouTube. One week is enough for everyone to have a look-see. Those that did not view it within the week and say s/he did not see it, missed out. I have told them beforehand.

[purplehaze]

Being all indignant when someone takes advantage of your giving your IP away for free strikes me as.... well, being more than a little naive.

Naive perhaps, Kathy, but it seems the issue is controversial even within the Creative Commons itself (as attested here). While I might rejoice in some individual profiting monetarily from the use of my freely-given-but-properly accredited work, I would feel quite differently about a large corporation doing same. It is a core principle of the Creative Commons concept that the rights conferred by their licenses apply to everyone, but the controversy seems to suggest that the "concept" is still evolving. Was listening to an hour-long discussion of the sharing economy on the radio tonight. The Flickr incident is a perfect example of some of the tensions they were talking about between the old economy and the new. Fascinating stuff, to me anyway.

[GeoBonsai]

There are so many outstanding photographers on flicker with epic images getting millions of views. These photographer phenoms really have to protect their potential royalties and their life's work! That's important to protect.

Conversely, very few people look at my photos (snapshots, really) on flickr and I seriously doubt a corporation would want to use any of them for anything. How does the "sharing economy" affect an average photography hobbyist, such as myself, who has images on flickr?

[purplehaze]

How does the "sharing economy" affect an average photography hobbyist, such as myself, who has images on flickr?

Possibly not at all, but there is no predicting. If you don't tag your photos, they likely will never be found by potential users. But I am a regular reader of a fairly well-known blog that uses CC-licensed photos from Flickr to illustrate its posts. Some of the images used are quite ordinary, and while I would have no problem with that particular blogger using my images, I might with some other blogger whose views I find abhorrent. There was apparently a case of a woman whose likeness ended up on a Virgin billboard ad as a result of them using her CC-licensed image. (She sued; I don't know if she was successful.) Whether you willingly enlist in the sharing economy or not, the fact is that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to control their intellectual property in the Internet age. The individual makers of creative content of any kind are currently hugely disadvantaged; as a translator, I am all too aware of it in my industry.

I should add, as another example, Yahoo's Project Weather. I was recently invited to allow Yahoo to use some of my landscape images on their weather app. When I looked at the terms, I read this:
"You retain ownership to any photos you submit to the group, however, you grant to Yahoo a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license (but not the obligation), with the right to sublicense, use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, publicly perform and publicly display such photos (in whole or in part) in connection with (i) Yahoo Services; and/or (ii) advertising and promotional materials (in all mediums and any media) for the Yahoo Services both by Yahoo and by third parties. Yahoo Services is defined as the collection of resources offered by Yahoo, including without limitation various communications tools, forums, shopping services, search services, personalized content and branded programming through Yahoo’s network of properties which may be accessed through any various medium or device now known or hereafter developed." Huh??? As a creative content creator in my own right (as a translator), I feel a kinship with professional photographers who are being put out of work by schemes like this, a sense of solidarity that reinforces my inclination not to participate in my own exploitation.

[FlyingSquirrel]

only the CC licenses that allowed for commercial use that were being used...

...But, hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good scaremongering.

First of all, I will admit that I made an honest mistake - yes, I did not realize that some of these CC licenses excluded commercial use.

Second of all, I do not think I should be considered a scaremonger, as that implies that I did this for my own enjoyment. Obviously, my intentions were good, in that I was trying to notify anyone that may not have been aware of what was happening. Granted, you have pointed out the facts, and I was partially mistaken, but you don't need to be rude about it.

Good day.

[Donald]

I think what you did, Matt, was very helpful from the point of view of raising awareness. Janis has then given us good guidance/explanation of the 'inner workings' of the issue and its possible implications.

[James G]

Matt,
I am not a 'patents' expert, or a 'copyright' guru, and I have very little technical knowledge of the legal aspects of image ownership. 'Creative Commons' is a 'technical' term which I suspect is absolutely necessary when defining intellectual rights and licencing but it is not one I was fully cognisant of either.

I did not see your post as scaremongering, and to be frank, Cathy's post, or more specifically the tone of it irritated me too.

But, I suppose though there are some things that get under our skin, which result in a snap response with more bite than we intended at the time.