Landscape, Nature and Travel Photography

232 Responses to “How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up on Sale This Weekend”

1. Juha Ylitalo

   on July 7 2008

   API seems to be the biggest issue on flickr…
   It makes it so powerful for various uses and at the same time its their Achilles heel, when it comes to treating their photographers like dirt.
   I’ve personally done some sort of compromise by allowing my photos to be visible on public searches (within flickr) but disallowing them from 3rd party sites.
   Anyway, this topic is something that should be raised to public awareness and as a result, I submitted it to digg. Let’s see, if it makes it to front page.

2. Alfie Goodrich

   on July 7 2008

   I couldnt agree more and have deleted all my work from Flickr and will be leaving when my Pro account is up in September. Flickr needs to get way more reponsible about who they give their API to and how they track their activity with it. I would like to think that my strongly worded fax to Myxer on Sunday helped them decide to shut down the API from their site. Their flagrant disregard for the law is sadly rife these days and I am sick and fed up with people telling me “well, that’s the internet”. It is precisely that attitude that is making it very hard for pro photographers like me to find a safe way of using the internet to promote their work. I am not naiive but I am thoroughly disappointed.

   I was on Flickr two years and I think their attitude to helping people protect their copyright has been very poor indeed. The same people that have filled up their site to the brim with great images deserve a little more care when it comes to protecting that work. I dont expect miracles but I do expect a little more than Flickr dishing out their API to anyone who wants it and then leaving it up to us, the users, to track down abuse of that API and report it to Flickr.

   So, I am done with Flickr. My blog is not thief-proof but it is not as much of a honeypot as Flickr, especially not one that opens up its code to anyone who wants to get industrial about stealing the content.

3. Sherri Meyer

   on July 7 2008

   I think everyone should be done with Flickr!

4. Jan

   on July 7 2008

   Thanks for reporting it in this much detail. Very unfortunate, but not surprising at all.

   Social networking sites are still learning that users can be very unforgiving when their concerns are ignored, and social networking site’s success depends very much on their users’ goodwill.

5. James M Shook

   on July 7 2008

   I have made most of my photos private and will be leaving flickr for good soon because of flickr’s “hands-off” attitude towards third-party copyright infringements via their API or RSS feeds. flickr’s approach seems to be to rely on the developers to respect the licensing of the photos on flickr, and then wait until enough noise is raised when an infringing use of the API key is discovered before acting. It is interesting that in all of the cases I have followed on flickr, the developer has always professed ignorance of the specifics of flickr’s API Terms of Use and, at times, of copyright law in general. Of course, by the time flickr pulls the API key–if they do–many horses are out of the barn, as was the case with Myxer.com.

   I find it hard to believe that flickr is incapable of modifying their API so that the photographer’s wishes with respect to access by the API and licensing were ENFORCED, rather than make all photos available to developers and hope they respect them. Put out one big fire and you won’t have to keep putting out endless small fires.

   I am so skeptical of flickr’s resistance to making the necessary changes to their API that I have come to suspect that they are tacitly encouraging copyright infringement.

   For example it took well over a year for them to change a single line of text that previously had been worded to make it seem like All Rights Reserved images were in the Public Domain. Many copyright infringers pointed to the bit of text as justification for using protected imagery. (Whether this confusion was real or not it is impossible to say, but I suspect that wording provided convenient wiggle room for some of the developers.) Their new wording only a mild improvement.

   flickr’s whole reason for being–and value as a web-based enterprise–is “photo sharing” and I am getting the strong feeling that they value the “sharing” aspect far more than the individual rights of their customers.

   It is certainly true that photographers expecting that professional standards should be supported by flickr are swimming upstream. It was never meant to be a place for professionals to show their work. As far as I can tell, it was designed to be a place where you can post snaps of Nancy’s wedding or our trip to Belize. Most of these photos–and they make up the bulk of material on flickr, I suspect–are of interest only to friends and family. In fact flickr provides categories like “friends” and “family” to be used to control access to your photos if you want to do that. Photographers in this category could probably care less if someone used their photo in some other context. In fact, when a massive copyright violation is discovered and publicised on flickr, many of the people whose rights have been infringed are thrilled to be published or that someone actually “values” their work.

   Professional photographers (or those doing professional-quality work) are simply in the wrong place if they expect support for their rights on flickr. It’s just not in flickr’s business interest to do so.

6. Aaron

   on July 7 2008

   There are definitely some issues with the API and licensing terms. I enjoy the community aspects of the site, and Flickr has helped me gain exposure and make a few sales. On the other hand, I have no idea where my photos might appear because someone or some application is pulling them via an application using Flickr’s API. Hopefully this can get some mainstream play for discussion.

7. Annie

   on July 7 2008

   I have been balancing the pros and cons of Flickr for well over a year now and this news severely tips the scales - I’m deleting my account.

8. Dominik

   on July 7 2008

   I hate to say it - but what you’re describing is what the API is for and what makes it so successful and great. Flickr was the first photo sharing site with such a great API and has enabled a whole new way of interacting with your own and other people’s content - and opened the door for countless other web services to do exactly that by being a prime example of what an open API can do for a service.

   I doubt that Flickr would be where they are now if it wouldn’t have those open “Web 2.0″ features like the highly detailed API.

   There are many ways how you can opt-out of the API usage and if you feel the need to “protect” your images - either don’t put them on the web or disable the API for your account.

9. Alfie Goodrich

   on July 7 2008

   Good for you Annie. I have been doing the same since having my work ripped off and re-published [with copyright attributed to them] in Italy’s biggest newspaper, La Repubblica. Today I emptied my account,leaving just a goodbye message for my pals there and screengrabs of the Myxer.com website with my pics there and a nice stream of opinions and comments from people. As James said above, Flickr was not ever the place for pros but it had good traffic and a vibrant community. The attitude of the management leaves a lot to be desired though but what can one expect?

10. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 7 2008

    API was disabled for me, that didnt stop Myxer picking up images uploaded on dates before I disabled the API. I dont like this attitude of “well, that’s the internet’. Stealing is stealing, whether it is from a gallery, a shop or a website. The API needs to be policed better by Flickr. Period.

11. Mark Zanzig

    on July 7 2008

    Jim, I wholeheartedly agree.

    Though, unfortunately, what you describe is nothing new.

    I pulled all my Flickr photos last year for a multitude of reasons. One of the reasons was the inability/unwillingness of Flickr to give control to photographers over their works in all respects.

    For example, I found several of my images on so-called “Made for Ads” sites. These sites are template-based auto-generated sites that (due to the lack of any real content) simply pull a random selection of images from Flickr to display along their ads. These guys do not care whether a photo is ARR or CC or whatever. They just pull these images to display along their ads. Sickening. (And you can’t even send a DMCA to their web host, because you can not duplicate the infringing activity. Convenient.)

    As I had one of my (unique) company names embedded along each image, I was able to find several of the infringers using Google. Boy, that was an eye-opener. I found hundreds of blogs who pulled images, unauthorized. Dozens of scrapers and MFA sites. When threatening legal action, I received curses, usually along the lines of “it’s RSS [or the Flickr API], so we can’t control what’s being displayed. If you don’t want to see your image, why do you publish them on Flickr anyway?”

    I got so tired of this that I finally gave up and pulled all images. I suggest to every photographer to do the same.

    And no, despite high view counts Flickr did not significantly improve my business. So it’s not that big a loss for me.

12. A Must Read for Every Photographer on Flickr! | Ben's Photography Thoughts

    on July 7 2008

    [...] a long post today about a big mishap with Flickr and API’s. You really need to read the post (here) if you use Flickr at all. In a nutshell, this weekend every picture of Flickr was available for [...]

13. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    Thanks for bringing this up. I had no idea. It’s disturbing.

    It seems to me that by crafting the API to allow retrieval of images regardless of their respective licences, Flickr is creating an unacceptable ambiguity. Those who innocently use software that relies on the API and thereby infringe the photographers’ copyrights are correct to point the finger at Flickr. I have gotten into the habit of watermarking images I post to Flickr with an “All Rights Reserved” legend. I can see, however, that an innocent user fo such software might reasonably think, because the API allows him to pull down the image, that I had since granted a more permissive license.

    Of course, the API also makes it far easier, it appears, for unscrupulous third-parties to willfully infringe. This is really Flickr’s responsibility. We place our images in trust with Flickr. The company has a moral and ethical responsibility (if not a contractual responsibility) to keep the images safe if we’ve not licensed them for distribution.

14. Greg

    on July 7 2008

    Jim,

    Very scary but needed post for the photography community. Thanks for investing the time to put this up! It is partially because of these types of security holes with regards to safe guarding my legal rights that I have been very hesitant to use Flickr to date with my personal photography.

    Likewise, there were a number of terms in the Flickr API Terms of Use that raised alarms for us at FocalPower when we reviewed it last year. Flickr is obviously more concerned about the community versus the members of the community. It was this disregard for helping photographers protect their images that spurred the development of the FocalPower Photo Asset Management service that we are currently in closed early stage testing on. The entire FocalPower team is excited about the capabilities that we are working on to help photographers address the continuing issues of protecting their photo assets while leveraging them in the diverse digital world we need to live in.

15. Thomas Pawk

    on July 7 2008

    Excellent article. I am now removing all my snapshots from the internet.

16. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    So I run two services built on top of the flickr api. http://www.goodshotornot.com and http://www.smark.us however, goodshotornot requires you to submit your photos to a group pool in order to be included on the website and smark.us is available to the owners of a photo only. I would be very sad if flickr got rid of the api, as both of these sites have tuned into tools I use everytime I upload photos. (advert: check them out!)

    I simply don’t trust people not stealing photos on flickr, and as such, I usually only upload photos that are watermarked in a corner, have a max size of 1200px on an edge, 72 dpi, and only 60% jpeg quality. Does this make it impossible to use my photos? No, but I think more photogs should be aware of the risks of putting photos on sites like flickr.

    I’ve sold several photos to people who have messaged me on flickr asking to buy a print. If people rely on 3rd party tools for finding good content like flickrfan (and others), it’s fine with me if it helps me increase sales in the long run. I have no problem with some people seeing a low res image of mine if (and only if) it results in an increase in sales for me. I think it’s important to weigh both sides of the case. If we get make it harder to build cool 3rd party apps, it may be harder to get yourself discovered by people who actually want to give you money.

    Good post!

17. Tina Mammoser

    on July 7 2008

    Thanks for this, it’s a lot of information to pass on and I’m sure many people will be grateful for your effort. I didn’t know about the extent of the Privacy & Permissions settings so have now changed mine. I’m not actually terribly restrictive of my images online and don’t mind personal use but would rather the API utilities not access it. I have always reduced the sizes of my digital images for Flickr so that high quality prints aren’t possible anyway except for non-artwork images (ie personal images, studio shots etc) which do not contribute to my working income anyway.

18. Brooke Gross

    on July 7 2008

    I am a flickr member also and was furious when I read this. I posted a topic in one of the forums on flickr but that topic was locked after only five responses. I also emailed flickr about this and I hope to get some kind of response. Soon.

19. chip

    on July 7 2008

    Thanks for this post. I too am dismayed with the API and flickr protection in general. My account will be closed.

    It does make me wonder about flickrs future - whether that is focussed on the ’sharing’ aspects remains to be seen. Its interesting to think whether the sharing is going to be family and friends and snaps and (porn) and stuff or whether there will be a move into it becoming a site specifically for CC images - in direct competition with stock sites i guess.

    I have always wondered how the Google image search manages to also override flickr settings. I realise there are multiple ways to download photos but I’m confused about this in relation to Google.

    On flickr, if you have images set to no download you get the spaceball gif if anyone right clicks to download.

    Yet if images are found via a Google image search, one can click on the “full size image” link in the frame at the top of the google screen and just right click and save from flickr. I realise that “full size” will depend on the individual photo concerned but in Google returns my own at medium size.

    Why is this possible? Does Google use the flickr api? Is Google getting round settings? What’s the point of the flickr spaceball gif then?

20. chip

    on July 7 2008

    ps uploading low res etc doesnt really solve it - my images were leeched for web use so print quality is not an issue.

    I therefore in the process of moving my ’sellable’ stuff to a an online agency and leaving flickr for the sharers.

21. Richard Wong

    on July 7 2008

    What does API stand for?

    Before reading this even, I started taking some images off yesterday because I see no benefit to using Flickr other than to show off your favorite places to amateurs. That is something I have no interest in doing considering how little the general public cares about obeying park rules and the de-valuing of photography.

22. Mark Zanzig

    on July 7 2008

    API stands for “Application Programming Interface”. It’s in general a way for a web application to communicate with a web server. In the Flickr case, the API can receive queries from 3rd party services and will return certain parameters, e.g. image URL etc.

    By the way, the API is just the tip of the iceberg, really. The bigger problems are the automatic RSS feeds, the options to embed photos into blogs, and the general viewability of images on the web - basically, anyone with a web browser and an internet connection can pretty much “see” most of the content on Flickr, unless the view is restricted by the user. Viewers do not have to be logged in to see the content.

    This makes Flickr the # 1 source for image scrapers and image thieves. What makes it even worse is the fact that the number of images posted to Flickr is so gigantic that a withdrawal of just few portfolios, regardless of how attractive these are, does not really matter.

23. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    This reminds me of http://www.monuments.nu/2008/06/gva_bvl_the_sequence.html
    Belgian newspapers were showing flickr pictures tagged with the name of a city on the webpage with news about that city, not taking into account the copyright restrictions.

24. Jake

    on July 7 2008

    The thing is, at its core Flickr is a photo sharing website. That’s what you sign up for when you join. From their about page:

    ——-

    To do this, we want to get photos and video into and out of the system in as many ways as we can: from the web, from mobile devices, from the users’ home computers and from whatever software they are using to manage their content. And we want to be able to push them out in as many ways as possible: on the Flickr website, in RSS feeds, by email, by posting to outside blogs or ways we haven’t thought of yet. What else are we going to use those smart refrigerators for?

25. Richard Wong

    on July 7 2008

    “If we get make it harder to build cool 3rd party apps, it may be harder to get yourself discovered by people who actually want to give you money.”

    I think you’re missing the point. It isn’t about making it harder to build applications, it is about Flickr not holding up their end of the bargain when it comes to license and privacy designations. If you want to make your images available via something like Flickr Fan then good for you, but if Jim doesn’t, then his images shouldn’t be picked up by that application.

    Secondly, you have to know your market. Just because people see your images doesn’t mean that they are reaching the appropriate market (buyers).

26. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    Thanks to all that have commented and Dugg this post. For those of you who have stated that this was the final straw and reason enough for you to opt out of Flickr entirely I respect your opinions, but a problem will never be fixed unless it is made known to the people that can fix it. I have tried to individually make Flickr aware of this problem, but to get Flickr to address the issue it will require more than one voice. I still have hope that Flickr will take the rights of individuals seriously and put it as a top priority in their development cycle. Time will tell.

27. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Chip Google has court backing in being able to provide thumbnails of images for search purposes. These thumbnails merely reference the original. They’re not reselling the thumbnail. This is an independent issue to the Flickr API concerns I’ve relayed.

    Court Says Google Thumbnails From Adult Site Don’t Violate Copyright

28. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Mark Zanzig thanks for clarifying what API stands for for Richard. RSS feeds do pose a challenge. One that is far different than the concern raised by Chip with Google thumbnails. Whether Flickr or not, RSS feeds have the potential to handle image files in ways that require photographers to rethink how they display their content or come to terms in accepting various formats of web publishing. What is central to this and the larger point made in my photo is that photographers have the right and ability to determine how and when their photography is distributed. For some RSS feeds are acceptable while for others it is not. This is a personal decision that we all have to evaluate and make choices around.

29. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Mike The root of the newspaper image violation you’ve linked to is a result of the issue I’ve raised in this post.

30. David Bowman

    on July 7 2008

    You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to put your work out there digitally, in high resolutions, but you want it to be protected. It’s impossible. If you put your stuff out there, people are going to steal it. End of story. No amount of cripped APIs, copyright/copyleft legalese, or social-network-company-ranting is going to stop this from happening. If you want to keep your work private, then keep it in the analog world, or make your photos “Friends Only” and remove them from public searches.

31. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Jake Let me be perfectly clear. When signing up for Flickr I did not forfeit the rights to my photography away. Flickr may indeed be a photo sharing site, but they have specified Terms of Use and Privacy settings that supposedly enable photographers to decide how and when their photos can be shared. My post merely highlights that their system is broken.

    If I do something in violation of their ToU I am held accountable for it and required to take corrective action. By your logic if they’re in violation of that same agreement by Flickr or Yahoo, not to mention in violation of the law, I am to accept it. That is illogical. I, as every user of Flickr, have entered into a legally binding agreement in how private information and assets in the form of photographs are to be distributed on Flickr. If that agreement is violated by either party then it is a requirement that teh offending party take the necessary steps to comply with it.

    Just because I post content on the Internet I’m not forfeiting my right to anything. Every service you sign up for whether you pay for it or not is based on a legally binding agreement. Your email, your photos, your personal information, etc. The companies behind these services will sue you or force you to comply to any and all agreements you enter into with them. To forfeit your rights “because you’ve posted it on the Internet” is not only foolish, but extremely short sighted.

32. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @David Bowman see the comment above this one

33. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    To be honest, this isn’t Flickr’s fault. All of us set a license on each photo we upload, which by default, is All Rights Reserved. Flickr isn’t infringing on anyone, it’s the people who are developing these apps that are infringing.

    Flickr has a special API function call (http://www.flickr.com/services/api/flickr.photos.licenses.getInfo.html) This function call will tell an application author the current license status of any photo on the site. If the person who writes the application doesn’t properly check the license status, and they aren’t using the photo in a manner that would have would be considered fair use, then they are responsible for the infringement,not flickr.

    IMHO, flickr has done everything within reason to help protect people’s photos. Nothing stops someone from manually taking any publicly viewable photo from flickr if they really want to. I’m a software engineer during the day and let me tell you , if someone can view your image on the web, then they can save it. The whole spaceball.gif thing is a joke. (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/08/download-flickr-photos-protected-by.html) Disabling right clicks? It’s a joke too! You’re just wasting your time. It’s like locking the doors on a convertible! If you are paranoid about people stealing your photos, watermark them in a way that they are of no use to someone or don’t put them online in the first place. People who put their photos inside of flash applications are also fooling themselves, it’s trivially easy to take photos out of a flash application as well! (I do wish flickr supported watermarking as a site feature, that’d be something I’d love for them to do!)

    The apps people write should check the license and only use the photo if the license allows it or it’s consistent with fair use rights. Making the API more restrictive isn’t the answer. Even if Flickr had no API, I could easily write my own web browser that could goto flickr, request a page the same way firefox does, parse the html, lookup the image locations, and go about my business. In the web industry this is called “scraping” and it puts a high load on web servers. This is one the reasons a lot of sites offer an API. People are going to be doing this stuff anyway, they just make it a bit easier so that when people do it, it doesn’t break the site for everyone.

    Flickr should quickly respond to complaints from photogs that 3rd party sites are illegally using their photos, but anything more than that, is going to far and going to cripple one of the things that makes flickr great.

    ..mike

34. chip

    on July 7 2008

    Re Google.

    Google does return thumbnails, and a the link to the original site on flickr is fine, but it’s also presented within a top frame - where you can get to the medium size on flickr without the spaceball gif. I just wondered what the point of flickr’s spaceball gif was really.

    Thanks for the info and link. interesting.

35. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    Hey everyone, David Bowman is offering up his car for free! He’s clearly not a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. No door lock, alarm, kill switch or LoJack is going to really stop a determined thief*, so if he didn’t want it stolen, he wouldn’t have parked it out in public on the street! Have at it — thanks, David!

    * Copyright infringement is not theft, but the analogy is still apt.

36. bloopy

    on July 7 2008

    yeah, that analogy doesn’t really work too well ‘cuz in the case of the photo, david still has his photo if you steal it. . .

    also, fyi, thomas hawk has a post about this post along with his own long series of comments:

    http://thomashawk.com/2008/07/how-every-flickr-photo-ended-up-on-sale.html

37. Shan

    on July 7 2008

    If Flickr keeps ignoring their responsibilities, it’s perhaps time to move to a different photo sharing site.

    SmugMug has similar tagging features, and a great API that actually obeys photo restrictions. They’ve even implemented OAuth.

38. Shan

    on July 7 2008

    Forgot to mention that they are a pay site, though. Perhaps you get what you pay for.

39. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    @Shan

    SmugMug has an API just like flickr. If your photos are publicly viewable, you can get get them, no matter what service you use. If your photos are not publicly viewable, you can’t get them on smugmug and you can’t get them on flickr. There is no difference. The flickr API does not give anyone “special” access. If a photo is private or not viewable by the public, then the API doesn’t provide any access to it, no matter what service you’re using.

    I just don’t understand what would people would like flickr to do? They let you make your photos private, what more do you want?

40. Myk

    on July 7 2008

    Jim,

    Thanks for a very thought-provoking post. These are indeed trying times for a massive number of creative people whose footing has been destabilized by this era of instant, zero-cost distribution of digital content on the internet.

    As you mention in your article, I am the CEO of Myxer, and Myxer did indeed hatch a Flickr integration feature over the weekend. We quickly disabled the feature when we received complaints that the content we were featuring on Myxer was not being appropriately filtered based on the license information associated with each photo.

    Myxer has been operating for over three years with a mission of making it easy to get content to mobile phones. One thing we’ve heard from our users time and again is that they want easier ways to get photos from sites like Flickr to their phones. While we apparently fumbled in the first implementation of integration, I would respectfully submit that it was never our intent to use content from Flickr users in any way contrary to the original intent of the poster.

    One minor correction I would like to make to your post is that Myxer did not offer any Flickr content “for sale” on our site. Rather, Myxer displayed content from Flickr in our search results, with full attribution and direct links back to the hosting page on Flickr. Myxer allowed users to send the images to their phone’s web browser free of charge (we’re an ad-supported company).

    For what it’s worth, I am a huge fan of Flickr, and have long respected the community of creative people that make it what it is. While there may indeed be aspects of the Flickr API that make it prone to abuse, I have seen firsthand how the openness of the API has fostered innovation across a large spectrum of web companies.

    I again apologize to all of those in the Flickr community who felt violated by our integration, and I assure you we will very carefully evaluate all of the details of our integration with third party sites going forward. I sincerely believe that beyond this temporary period of disruption lies a better future that brings amazing new opportunities to content creators such as yourself.

    Best,
    Myk Willis
    Founder & CEO, Myxer

41. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Myk Thanks for replying to the post. As mentioned in some of the other forums you’ve posted to whether the images were sold out right or offered to support a revenue stream through advertising it really makes no difference. As described the ability of your company to earn money is dependent on the flow of creative assets such as photographs. To stay on topic the core issue here is the lack of filtering to exclude photographs with restrictive licensing terms in your Flickr integration.

    The fundamental right of every photographer with restrictive licensing terms such as “All Rights Reserved” is to regulate when and how their photographs are used. “Regulate” is a pretty formal term… in the end it’s a matter of a photographer granting “permission”. That’s not all that complicated of a concept. We ask permission for things all the time.

    Whether a fan of Flickr or not the manner in which you employed Flickr integration completely disregarded that will of each photographer with similar licensing preferences and went counter to the law. Pulling Flickr integration from your site was a wise move. I think it’s fair to say you narrowly missed disaster with photographers filing copyright infringement lawsuits. While you narrowly missed getting tagged by several such lawsuits in this situation it is only a matter of time before Flickr or someone else suffers a different fate.

42. Mick O

    on July 7 2008

    If Flickr does what you ask, far fewer people will be able to find and view my photos.

    No disrespect meant to you. I selfishly think you should move your photos off Flickr entirely. I like the fact that I can use the Flickr APIs to display my photos even though they are All Rights Reserved. I like that people can find links to my photos in these third party apps. If someone decided to sell my photos, I’d blame the people doing the selling. I wouldn’t blame the FLickr API, I wouldn’t blame Google Image Search.

    I WANT as many people as possible to see my photos.

    I wish you all the best in control of your photos, but if you don’t like Flickr, for my part I hope you find someplace else that you like better instead of screwing up the place I like. Since other places with stronger more draconian measures ALREADY exist, there’s no need to screw up Flickr — just go to those sites.

    After all, its a a better internet if there are different sites for different purposes, yeah?

    Hoping we can coexist…

43. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Mike O Thanks for the reply. The issue at hand isn’t about messing up Flickr’s API merely Flickr abiding by and enforcing the rules they set with their API. Facebook doesn’t seem to be suffering when users accept using applications versus those applications being forced upon them. Why would it be any different with Flickr? I opt in to use Moo cards as I opt in to use several other services employing the Flickr API. Signing up with a services such as Flickr doesn’t equate to you abandoning your rights. This does equate to an opt-in versus opt-out discussion. Currently the law for other types of services are clearly in line with an “opt-in” requirement. If a company does not abide by the “opt-in” rules they’re subject to penalties. Flickr for all intents in purposes is attempting to abide by “opt-in” rules but ignoring them or turning a blind eye to them.

44. The Law

    on July 7 2008

    Don’t mistake “draconian measures” for a lack of education in today’s social networking crowd.

45. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 7 2008

    @Myk. I have corrected the posts I left on Flickr about content being for sale on your site. However, offering something for free is usually about enticing people back to spend money so it amounts - at the end of the day - to the same thing. Plus, giving away my work also devalues it. One of the problems with being a photographer nowadays is trying to actually keep some value in the work.

    And with all respect, this line in your message here and on Flickr: “it was never our intent to use content from Flickr users in any way contrary to the original intent of the poster. ”

    …betrays either a complete lack of the ability to read [clause 2 of the API - about 15mm down from the top of the document - makes very plain the responsibility of developers/keyholders to respect the permissions of each Flickr user]; or, perhaps, an unwillingness on you part to admit that you were trying to get away with something whilst hoping that no one would notice; lack of knowledge of copyright or a complete disregard for it.

    @ Others: A few people here have again grought up the whole issue of ‘if you dont want it stolen, borrowed or taken then dont put it on the web’. This is something we really need to work to get away from as a catch-all excuse for some people’s behaviour. Despite using watermarks, despite putting low-rez content online, I still get ripped off by everyone from large newspapers down to small start-ups wanting some free content. Even if some of them asked if they could use my stuff that would better than how things are now. As people went online, their manners seemed to go offline.

    Why are the choices as stark as ‘if you want to use the web well, then prepare to get your work stolen left right and centre’. Or, ‘well, dont put your work anywhere near the web’.

    And @Mick O: what is draconian about me wanting a site I belong to and pay money to, to help me protect what is owned by me? I want as many people to see my pictures as possible too, it’s my livelihood so the more people who see them the better for me. But as so many people have pointed out, if I care about not having them taken and mis-used by people, then I seem to be left with the option of not using the internet at all.

    Very sad that it has come to: “stop f***ing moaning about your work getting ripped off, this is the internet… that’s the way it is.”

46. Sean McGee

    on July 7 2008

    If you don’t want your photos used without permission, DON’T UPLOAD THEM TO THE INTERNET. Plain and simple.

    Anyhow, as long as the photos are still hosted on the Flickr website and haven’t been copied to anyone’s server, it’s not a copyright violation.

    Read Flickr’s terms of service. You agreed to have those photos used in their searches, feeds and API. You don’t like it, don’t use it.

    Use Adobe Bridge instead. It’s 100% secure because it’s not on the internets.

47. Jim

    on July 7 2008

    @Sean McGee Read the post and then read your comment. Every point in your comment is addressed in the post. Don’t waste my or any other persons time if you’re not going to read what was written.

48. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 7 2008

    Hear, hear, Jim.

49. Krista Neher

    on July 7 2008

    Jim

    Thanks for taking the time to write such a well thought out post on the subject.

    What I find interesting about this discussion (and the discussion over at Flickr) are those who say “don’t put it online if you don’t want it stolen”. Do people tell musicians and bands not to create MP3s if they don’t want their work stolen? Do people tell the movie houses that piracy is something that should be expected and tolerated because people CAN steal? I find it interesting that the artists (photographers) are attacked versus those stealing their work.

    The internet has clearly created issues for all types of artists wishing to share their work online.

    This posts brings much needed attention to some of the issues that photographers face online - Great Post!

50. Mark

    on July 7 2008

    Great post Jim. It highlights the reasons I don’t post many images to any other site than my own or my stock agency. Social networking has simply turned into social copyright free-for-all.

51. Rob02190

    on July 7 2008

    I have read though all of the comments, original post and associated links you all make some great points here. The discussion has me intrigued and worried about my content. I have to admit I have learned quiet a bit about RSS and API functions as well as flickr. I have always had my content restricted to whom can interact with on flickr. As far as extending my flickr content it was my perception that I had control over interaction; by that an entity had to ask permission and I would have to give that. I now realize that is not so. I also looked over all of the setting in privacy, profile, batch operations and pretty much everywhere else I could think of. No where did I find a way to exclude my photos if I choose to from RSS feeds.
    I am not a Pro by any means, but that still does not mean that I don’t value my work. A few that have replied to this post think “Well you posted what do you expect” attitude, I have to disagree with that. I posted because I found flickr to be a useful tool to organize my hobby. I also have made a few friends and received valuable feedback.
    I thinks what it all comes down to is that flickr need to improve security settings. Have looked into watermarking services and at this moment in time I can’t afford the cost for the amount of work that I have accumulated over the years.
    I really think these are issues that need to be addressed by flickr, and I want to thank Jim for bringing it into the public light.

52. It is your fault I steal your photos. Accept it. Please. at Photrade Blog

    on July 7 2008

    [...] was shocked in reading this post by Jim Goldstein about how the Flickr API has allowed 3rd parties to violate the Flickr Terms of Service, and the [...]

53. Krista Neher

    on July 7 2008

    @Rob02190 - I work for a photo website that is trying to help photographers protect and share their photos online. We offer custom text watermarking and are currently in private beta. If you are interested I’ll send you an invite (it’s free) - Krista at photrade dot com.

54. Kate

    on July 7 2008

    Jim,

    I greatly appreciate you taking the time to bring this to all our attention.

    The internet; Flickr, and Smugmug are ways I share my work.
    Like many photographers and artists I want my work out there for people to see/purchase.

    The internet offers a huge market. However, I find it sad that there are those who are spouting the ‘it’s the internet - get over it’song. I value my work and that of others, it has meaning. We should not turn our heads to people or organizations who steal and simply accept it as ‘the way it is’. I pay to belong to sites and hold them to their integrity.

    The only way these organizations, websites will get the message is if people take a stand. Leaving a site won’t scratch the surface, it’s like going on strike with a conglomerate…strike one product and you’re still buying another. Artists, photographers need to make their voice known to make change happen.

    I use all available options to protect my work and trust that the companies and sites I work with do the same. If they don’t I expect them to make it right. Flickr is what it is because of people like me and everyone that has posted images on Flickr and commented here. This is something they should take serious and address.

55. Sylkyred1

    on July 7 2008

    I really don’t understand all of this at all, however, I do know that I do NOT allow blogging of my pictures. I have found several of mine on different blogs and when I email the person that has blogged it, I get the response that they are using the RSS feed and that they have no control over it. They are simply getting the latest pictures from certain groups. Most of the bloggers credit the photo back to me, however, flickr evidently does not care about who they allow to blog or sell, etc. I find this very disturbing.

56. Jeanne

    on July 7 2008

    that is weird that you would even run into your pictures online…not once, but twice. but i guess considering what you are saying, it was a good thing.

57. Mike

    on July 7 2008

    Hrmm, lots of people seem offended that flickr publishes RSS feeds. To the people who are upset with this, do you know what’s in an RSS feed? It has nothing to do with your images, it’s a bunch of metadata and urls. Here is a sample snippet of an RSS feed from a recent upload to flickr. (Note you may have hundreds or thousands of people following your photos on flickr by using something like Google Reader to simply read your RSS feed.) The RSS feed itself has no image in it! It’s simply a bunch of URLs. People using RSS aren’t copying your photos, they’re just viewing them the same way they would if they went to flickr.com. And iirc (ianal), linking to any content is fine on the internet. Copying it is wrong, but linking to it without copying it is fine.

    Snippet of whats in an RSS feed:

    Treasure Island Night Shoot-16
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjwiacek/2644903703/
    Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:58:38 -0800
    2008-07-06T23:11:51-08:00
    nobody@flickr.com (gos81)
    tag:flickr.com,2004:/photo/2644903703

    Treasure Island Night Shoot-16

    gos81

58. Barman6

    on July 7 2008

    First I agree flickr should be enforcing the API. They know what kind of copyright you have so why allow those pictures to be accessed other than the meta (non picture) data. Developers (of which I am one) do see the limitations to what they can do with pictures. So I think both flickr and the programmers are in the wrong and very much vulnerable. But now here is my question.

    Why don’t you just add a signature to each photo you upload. Granted someone can remove the signature but it will take some work and will probably not be worth their while cropping or removing the signature. If someone does remove the signature I would think you have grounds to sue them. Shouldn’t that put an end to flickr blatantly allowing the rip off of photographers?

59. Steve

    on July 7 2008

    If the Flickr API has a flag for what the copyright settings are for a given image, then it should simply not respond to\refuse a request via the API for a copyright or all rights reserved protected image. That shouldn’t be too hard to code.

    Flickr ought to adopt an intentional ‘opt-in’ procedure for enabling levels of sharing. You should have to specify if you want family, then friends, then contacts, then everyone to view your images, and at which resolution, and you should have to choose to remove any rights, rather than having to choose to have them.

    Adding a watermark feature such as Krista Neher mentions above is something else they could do, and again have it be something that people could turn off if they wanted to. I don’t think that would harm Photrade which has a number of other positive features going for it.

60. somebodyfstopme

    on July 7 2008

    What a lot of people don’t get here is that Flickr assigns a key to a developer. They have a responsibility to handle complaints about those developers and potentially revoke the key.

    Developers must act responsibly, but Flickr must police! They are ultimately responsible. It’s too bad, but it sounds like it may take a class action suit to get them in line.

61. Dan Mitchell

    on July 7 2008

    Jim, you are right on the money on this one. I’ve been somewhat concerned about the use of my photos posted on Flickr since I started discovering some of them used on other’s web site. Clearly Flickr needs to get clear with their users about what is and is not going to happen to photos posted at Flickr.

    I value Flickr as a way to let people find out about my photography and as a way to find out about the work of others. However, as valuable as this is, it is not valuable enough to get me to simply give away my work for free to whomever for whatever.

    I haven’t gotten to the point where I’m removing my work from Flickr yet, but some time ago I switched to smaller versions of my photos and began adding watermarks across the face of the photos.

    Dan

62. Twilight Fairy

    on July 7 2008

    That’s quite a revelation! There are just TOO many sites which just stream content through flickr pools or through explore etc and they can use this content anytime for their own benefit.. whether it is sale or traffic to their own site!!

    What really is the solution here? Can we share anything at all, without worrying about some kind of copyright violation?

63. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 7 2008

    Twilight; the answer, according to a lot of people, would seem to be no. The answer would seem to be that us photographers get our heads out of our arses and realise that the web is a place where, if you put things, they will get stolen. That this is a fact of life. What a shame. I am going back to using the web as a very carefully managed tool in promoting exhibitions in the real world. That way at least I can get to control who walks out of the room with a print at the end of the day.

64. Andreas Levers

    on July 7 2008

    I understand your frustration. But if it weren’t for the API the images would be pulled directly from the HTML site which isn’t that much more complicated. Any data uploaded to the web can be easily copied, redistributed and altered. No matter if there is an API or not. Any improvment has to target the way Flickr works as a whole.

    If your image is part of the public Flickr image pool (not restricted to Friends and/or Family or being private completely) it is easy to grab a copy like the services do that track the explored photos, which - as far as I know - is a process of analyzing the explore calendar over and over again without any API call.

    In my optioion this problem won’t be solved with a technological approach. Watermarking, limiting the size, denouncing the copyright violators and restricting permissions will be the only way to deter image theft.

    A minor technical detail: You don’t need a developer account or API key to access the RSS feeds. The feeds are just another representation of the website compatible with aggregators like Bloglines, Google Reader or Outlook.

    Apologies for my English, it is not my first language.

65. Twilight Fairy

    on July 7 2008

    Alfie : you wont believe the number of ppl who just take screenshots of the browser and the image can be so easily copied.

    Jim : Not only images, this RSS predicament extends to the whole blog world as well. There are so many sites which simply use the RSS feed of any sites, put it on theirs, put ads and earn revenue out of it! or if nothing, at least they build traffic for themselves.

66. insignificant thoughts » Blog Archive » Daily Links from Ma.gnolia

    on July 8 2008

    [...] How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up on Sale This Weekend | JMG-Galleries - Jim M. Goldstein Photography:… [...]

67. Jim

    on July 8 2008

    @Mike and @Twilight Fairy to be clear RSS feeds are not bad, but it is possible to make use of “enclosures” in which multimedia files (photos, audio, etc.) can be relayed. As with most things RSS feeds can be configured by the host site creating them. So while RSS feeds can contain content that some may not want distributed they are still a key communication channel that shouldn’t be condemned just for having the option to make use of enclosures.

    What makes Dave Winer’s FlickrFan a particular concern is that the files are extracted from the enclosures to be saved to a local computer. That is extending the normal use of RSS Feeds. One day I hope to find out in more detail how Dave Winer actually pulls high resolution imagery from his FlickrFan feeds. Perhaps some day he’ll take me up on my request to talk about it.

68. Twilight Fairy

    on July 8 2008

    Jim : no, the idea is not to condemn RSS feeds, they are a great tool in my opinion. The only point is, “sharing” also opens windows to infringement is what I meant. Take for instance google reader. Today I can share any post I read and I can also put up what I share on my page, drive traffic, earn moolah.. is it fair for the ppl whose writing or work I share? It maybe ok with some since they are getting publicity and it may not be ok with some again, who think they are well established and their work, is feeding some ads.

    As for flickrfan, I havent seen it myself, but I do know that it’s quite easy to “calculate” the URL of any flickr picture’s larger size simply by observing the logic flickr uses in generation of its URL’s for all sizes.

69. Mark Zanzig

    on July 8 2008

    Good discussion here, pinpointing most of the important issues.

    I guess that we should first see whether Flickr is to blame for the situation. My take: yes, they are to blame - for having created a platform with the goal to distribute as many photos to as many locations as possible. That alone is not a problem. The problem is that they did not offer suitable tools to hand over control over the distribution to photographers. They do not offer suitable tools to protect images (e.g. by automatically watermarking them). They are strictly following an opt-out model, so that virtually anyone uses the default settings (which are very good for Flickr, but not good for the photographer). So, problems galore here.

    Second, now that we think that Flickr is to blame, is there a resolution possible? Well, not too many. Certainly one can pull the images from Flickr (I did that, and I am quite happy about it). If you can not do this (for whatever reason), then you should at least protect your images with watermarks all over the place. Tag the images with a unique identifier, ideally in the image caption. This will help you to find infringers and go after them individually. If the problem continues to occur, we all should wait for decision on the Viacom-Youtube case. Should Viacom win (which is more likely given the recent rules ordered by the judge), we do have a valid case to check whether Flickr might be responible for infringing actions by their “partners” (API users) in a similar fashion as Youtube is responsible for the actions by their users. (OTOH, if Viacom loses this case, then forget about the protection of any digital content, be it photos, books, videos, or songs.)
    Let’s face it - the value of an image goes straight to zero once published on the Internet. The situation is really bad, and the quick fix to this is to pull the images from Flickr unless you get serious business from having your images up there.

70. Dave

    on July 8 2008

    I think there are a number of [seemingly] inter-related issues here. Flickr clearly does not respect your wishes [expressed through your account settings] about how your images may be distributed. If I set my account so nobody can download large[r] versions of my images, I expect this setting to be respected, but I have found at least two situations in which it is not.

    1] If your photo is cc licensed, Flickr takes the line that if you allow people to use your photo under a cc license by definition you’re willing to allow them to use the largest version available, even if your account settings clearly state otherwise, and
    2] programs using the API are able to download image sizes which you have not made available to the public [and this is separate from the issue of whether the program is licensed to do so]. This is a clear case of a situation where a program using the API is able to get access to content that a scraper could not.

    I think people either don’t understand [or more likely don't care] that when photographers say “all rights reserved” they actually mean it. The fact that photos are misused on the internet does not ipso facto mean that misuse should be facilitated.

71. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 8 2008

    Some really good points being raised here. Dave: I think you were right when you said that people who are doing this dont care about the rights issues. They cant or else I would at least get asked if people wanted to use my work. Once in a blue moon I do but those are the exceptions to a rule that is dominated by people taking what they want with, as they see it, the impunity of “its on the web, its therefore shared, it’s therefore mine to do what I like with”.

    Flickr’s API has gaps in it you could shoot a bus through. Plus, and this for me is the bottom line, it is assisting people in wholesale unauthorised redistribution.

    And what do we get from Flickr? Three days of silence.

    Goodness only knows what is going to happen when/if Microsoft purchases Yahoo.

72. Ralph Aichinger

    on July 8 2008

    This somehow reminds me of the situation when content controls (censorship, basically) was switched on for German (and other) Flickr users a year ago. There was lots of protest, but Yahoo/Flickr just waited it out.

    Yahoo/Flickr does what it considers best for its bottom line, and if it has to disregard the user’s wishes, so be it. I lost a lot of enthusiasm for Flickr then (the users are great, the company is not), and this is not surprising to me at all.

    Clearly if people mark pictures/sizes as not for download/viewing, they intend to have this respected by API-using applications too. If Flickr feeds this stuff to them, it is clearly because they have other priorities than their users’ wishes.

73. Some Links | Heaven In Black & White

    on July 8 2008

    [...] Read More Here! [...]

74. blackshadow

    on July 8 2008

    This is a great article Jim and certainly highlights some major problems with flickr. Nothing that isn’t fixable though if the powers that be at flickr are willing to.

    Recently a website run by Heineken Music has been taking a heap of “All Rights Reserved” from photographers through the flickr API - this is an example of a major multinational taking photographers work for commercial use.

    I and a number of other photographers have put in claims for payment to Heineken and very soon after the website was shut down.

    Maybe a petition from flickr users might force some changes from the flickr management.

75. Jim

    on July 8 2008

    @Dave great information in your comment. I was unaware of this facet of image handling by flickr. Very good to know.

76. Mark Zanzig

    on July 8 2008

    By the way, did you know that Flickr removes the EXIF data from all images they create from the original? Yep, it’s true - just the original keeps the EXIF data and any copyright information contained therein. The smaller images do not contain any EXIF information at all. This makes the smaller images basically “orphaned images” if the image itself does not has a watermark in the visible area.
    I never understood why Flickr did this as this can not be a technical issue. Rather, I guess that they are not too comfortable with copyright information being present in the images that are widely distributed.

77. Blog of kaiyen » Flickr or API developers at fault?

    on July 8 2008

    [...] How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up on Sale This Weekend | JMG-Galleries - Jim M. Goldstein Photography:… [...]

78. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 8 2008

    Didnt realise that about the EXIF. Is that ‘orphaned’ in the legal sense of the word? Cos if so, that could have some serious implications if that bill goes through congress in the States. So pleased I made the leap from Flickr this weekend. Have been wanting to for a while. Just neede the right, or wrong, motive….

79. Mary Anne

    on July 8 2008

    Bloopy, thank you for the link to Thomas Hawk’s post. It is refreshing to hear this reasoned point of view from a photographer I respect.
    http://thomashawk.com/2008/07/how-every-flickr-photo-ended-up-on-sale.html

80. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 8 2008

    Not sure I would call his opinion reasoned at all actually. He misses the point entirely as far as I and most of the people who have posted replies to his article are concerned.

81. Alfie Goodrich

    on July 8 2008

    …but that might be to be expected from the CEO of Zoomr.

82. Steve

    on July 8 2008

    This is something that Yahoo/Flickr could fix fairly easily if it is indeed the case that they have a flag for copyrighted photos.

    They need to put into their API code that will prevent sharing through the API of copyrighted pictures.

    They need to make sharing opt-in rather than opt-out.

    They ought to add in watermarking as an option people can turn on.

    They could even add in an option for watermarking for API sharing.

    None of this would be too difficult to code.

    It wouldn’t solve the problem of people pulling images from their browser cache (apart from watermarking), but it would cut down substantially on the massive sharing via the API of copyrighted images without permission or remuneration.

    I like Flickr. I like being able to see other’s work and get their comments on mine. I’m not a highly skilled photographer (yet). I only capture amazing things when I see them and have my camera with me (which I try to do most of the time). I’m not the kind of photographer who can look at an ordinary scene and create art from it. Someday, maybe, it is a nice goal.

    But I still would like to have my fair share from my work. I would love being able to pay for the hobby. A lot of people are in this category.

    It would simply be “due diligence” for Yahoo/Flickr to make the above changes, protecting them from a class action lawsuit which could be devastating and certainly could deliver Yahoo into the hands of Microsoft (which not liking monopolies, and not preferring Internet Explorer, I don’t want to see happen).

83. JB Design and Photo

    on July 8 2008

    I had heard of problems with Flickr in the past and thought that the copyright system they employ was a start to protecting my professional photographs. Now it looks like if we want to keep our photos on Flickr more needs to be done in the way of copyright protection and possibly watermarking as an additonal safeguard.

84. Mark Zanzig

    on July 8 2008

    Alfie, I am not a lawyer, but I have my experience with such cases. Here’s how I understand the orphaned works issue: if the author of a work can not be located, it’s basically an orphaned work. Today, publishers may not use orphaned works. They have to look for other images. One way to identify a work is, for example, a visible watermark on the photo itself. Easy. Another way is the copyright information in the photo itself (visible only if you open the EXIF information). Soooo, if my original carries no watermark but a copyright information in the EXIF file, Flickr automatically alienates me from the work when creating the smaller versions of the image. Now, when someone downloads any of the smaller files, the carefully crafted metadata is lost. Forever. Furthermore, even the filename is altered. So Flickr does not really prevent the creation of orphaned works.

85. Dominik

    on July 8 2008

    Steve - wouldn’t that render the whole API, in fact the whole idea of an API completely useless?

    The whole bunch of you remind me of the music industry executives - they, too, are losing “market share” or “sales” through internet sharing and the more intelligent musicians are starting to notice that they can’t make money through records anymore, but through life concerts. The very same will have to be true for writers or photographers or anyone else who makes something digital. They need to find a (new?) way to make money from the experiences with the product or from personalization. Wedding or event photography springs to mind, photo journalism that sells unique photos right after the things happens and so on.

    I know this doesn’t really have much to do with the Flickr API but isn’t that the underlying issue? Free sharing is the future, no matter if content creators (me included) want it or not. And it’s going to get easier and easier and more common every single day. “My” generation and younger (mostly younger. I’m old enough to remember 9600 baud modems) is growing up with an abundance of free of seemingly free content and making money from content the “old fashioned” way is going to go away. Even if Flickr is adding watermarking to their API or going from opt-out to opt-in.

86. As a professional photographer, are your copyrighed photographs safe? | Moongrabber

    on July 8 2008

    [...] Goldstein wrote an article on his blog entitled “How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up on Sale This Weekend“: It turns out everyone’s Flickr photos were available for purchase through MyxerTones.com [...]

87. Richard

    on July 8 2008

    Yahoo management is in a chaotic state at the moment and the founders of flickr are on the way out. Couple that with your great post and it amplifies the issues you raise.

    Some of the comments you’re taking issue with are also great, in particular, those from people who love flickr for its ability to get their work in front of a lot of people all over the world so fast. You’re right, if flickr/yahoo does it’s job, we can share safely. That’s the ideal. Getting there will be bumpy and there are bound to be problems. This API issue is one of them and thanks for pointing it out.

    There is always going to be tension between the great leverage of sharing work on the internet with all the good that comes with it and not using the internet and instead sitting on prints which will only been seen by others in shows or in books or in magazines. I’ve been an artist long enough to remember the days when no one could see my work until I had a show and I only had a few meaningful shows a year.

    Now, no matter what my medium, I can share my work every day with a lot of people and if I’m skilled at social networking using tools like flickr and other sites like it, I have a very powerful lever where I didn’t have one before.

    I’ve been using flickr since it started and have had photography and writing on the web since there was a web. I’ve had a lot of work stolen over the years and I feel terrible when it happens and do my best to tighten things up and communicate with the entities that are doing the stealing. However, the number of people who can now see my work, some of whom are now customers of mine, is much greater than it would be if I were relying solely on analog tools for sharing: shows, books, magazines. If I quit flickr in a huff, the biggest loss will be for me. I’ll lose customers, friends, and a web tool that while not perfect, allows me to share my work with a very big audience.

88. Copsunited

    on July 8 2008

    I am sure the aggregious actions by Flickr will have severe consequences in the future. I am appalled at the cavalier attitude they seem to display towards others rights to protect their work.

    I am far from a professional photographer ergo what someone choses to do with my meager submissions is of little consequence but for the professionals well that action is unforgivable and should result in legal and monitary action.

89. Vieira

    on July 8 2008

    Flickr removes EXIF data to optimize bandwidth (it can take several kilobytes for each image). Legally speaking (IANAL), this has nothing to do with copyright - it is stated in the source (flickr website) that the work has All rights reserved.

    As to watermarking, there are serious concerns for me and other people that find the marks outright garish and detracting from the picture.

90. Dave

    on July 8 2008

    I think the concerns about EXIF data are somewhat overstated - unless you have either programmed your camera to add a user comment that includes your copyright details or have otherwise subsequently added this to the image in post-processing [etc.] most images won’t have any copyright-related information in their EXIF tags when they are uploaded to flickr, so EXIF stripping is a moot point.

    I think there is however a logic in suggesting to flickr that they embed three or four bits of info in the images they serve: at a minimum I would suggest the name/username of the poster, the url to the poster on flickr/whatever website the user specifies, © whatever year the photo was first uploaded, and details of whatever CC license is applicable.

    If people really want watermarking I would suggest that they do it themselves [as Jim and I and countless others already do]. Be prepared however for a fair amount of abuse from flickr-ites who think borders and watermarks etc. interfere with their viewing/appreciation of your work.

    Is there a thread in the thousands of flickr forums discussing this? It would be useful to have an ‘official’ flickr thread where flickr staff could [or could not] contribute, comment etc., as that seems to be their preferred communication mechanism.

91. Mark Zanzig

    on July 8 2008

    @Dominik:
    Yep, we photographers appear to be a bunch of whiners. But the problem is only partly related to a changing market. The complaints are mostly centered around the fact that our work is stolen more often, thanks to sites like Flickr. Yep, this influences the market, too, but you can not compete with thieves. The consequence of this rapidly changing market: mediocrity. As professional photographers can not make a living from their work any longer, they will look for other jobs. The void will be filled by average photos by consumers. (Then again, Flickr is evidence that there are very good consumers out there.)

    @Vieira:
    I do not buy the bandwidth argument. How much KB does EXIF information add to the average image? 2? 5? 10? Neglectible given the huge sizes of the orginals.

    @Dave:
    My cameras include automatically not only the serial numbers of the bodies, but also the author information in clear text. Very convenient.

    BTW, ovfficial discussion can be found here - http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/76282/

92. Greg Ferguson

    on July 8 2008

    Hi folks,

    First, thank you for the blog entry. I suspect Flickr had bitten off more than they could chew, or would be willing to chew regarding image security, so I never put any of mine on there. I wrote my own code and run it on my own site instead. I don’t get the traffic, but then again I don’t have the hassles either.

    Yahoo and Google and Microsoft don’t care about our copyrights, because helping manage our rights doesn’t make then nearly as much money as allowing others to get to the images. Their token nods to supplying some sort of IP security are really only there to make a lawyer happy, and maybe to deflect some of the damage if they get hauled into court in a class-action lawsuit.

    For years I’ve split my time between full-time software development and running my own full-time photography company. Recently I was given the opportunity to help found a new internet community, only it’s designed from the top down for secured access - at the tightest level only those you allow in will be able to see your work. One of the things we’re implementing is a photo-gallery.

    In our weekly staff meeting yesterday I talked about the brewing storm of IP/rights issues for photographers, and the impending closing of S2F.com. One of the things I want to do is gather ideas and hear your brainstorms for what would make a perfect hosting and image-displaying site for photographers.

    I live the same nightmares, have fought all the same battles with infringement and theft, and want to build a site *I* want to use. Our team is interested in hearing your ideas, so feel free to forward them to my gmail acct… 8si.greg at gmail dot com. You can figure out how to unobscure that address.

93. Chester Bullock

    on July 8 2008

    Thanks for raising this issue. I went into the flickr api discussion you referenced and asked if anything is being done about this. Hopefully others will inquire as well.

94. Joy Elizabeth Effie

    on July 8 2008

    I am disguisted to read this … this only validates how I feel mislead & became the victim of photo theft!

    I thought I was SAFE, yet, I have experienced two types of theft …

    One day I rec’d a Flickr message alerting me to the fact that a photo of mine, of MY child, was being used as avatar on an Orkut profile. She, being a protective Mom & victim herself, provided me the link & much to my surprise there was my little girl being exposed as some other person with a fake name & tons of friends! Argh … what was I to think?

    “Is this for real?” I thought? Totally confused wondering how in the world did this happen! Looking at my daughter’s photo flipped & PS’d with someone else’s name was a surreal moment!

    Never did I think that this could happen to me because of Flickr’s permissions, allowing or not allowing downloads, etc., I completely trusted them. My permissions were set to NOT allow downloading. I felt I was posting on a SAFE website … right? Owned by Yahoo … a reliable company, right? WRONG!

    Though I was aware of the possibility that a small file could be created by right click/copy, I felt that a thumbnail, in no way, would be large enough for anyone to PS successfully. I was baffled.

    It wasn’t until some “photo artist” contacted me with wanting to share numerous versions of his creations made form one of my other photos, again my daughter, that he told me he simply made a SCREEN PRINT … one that could be manipulated in PS creating a massive size file!

    It all made sense … I was convinced, even with today’s technology, you cannot trust photo websites! There was absolutely no way to protect any of my photos posted on the Internet unless I controlled who was able to see my photos; therefore I removed my children’s photos from being public to only be available to those I allow as “Friends & Family” … an option on Flickr, which I highly recommend for all other parent/photographers to do.

    I am very appreciative that I experienced what happened to me for it made me all the more computer savvy than I already thought I was. I use to think how great it was to share my children’s photos allowing anyone to see & appreciate not only my talent but, how adorable they are … every parent feels that way, I’m sure. I thought, what harm is there in others looking … it’s not like they could do anything with a thumbnail.

    Boy, was I naïve … if it wasn’t for bratty kids on Orkut stealing my children’s photos to play their silly innocent FAKE game, & then the “photo artist” telling me about SCREEN PRINTS, I would have never become aware starting to think & wonder, nor will I ever know what creep has large files of my children’s photos saved on their computer!

    AND TO THINK, NOW WE UNDERSTAND THAT FLICKR IS ALLOWING THIS!

95. Vieira

    on July 8 2008

    @Mark Zanzig: In Flickr, originals are what their name implies: original. It means no altering at all, no rotation, no EXIF stripping, no conversion. EXIF is only stripped for the scaled-down versions, where that 5-to-50 KiB actually makes a difference. Thanks for the link to the official thread.

    @Joy Elizabeth Effie: If it can be displayed, it can be copied. As much as Flickr tries to block theft, a user can always hit Print Screen and copy what’s on the screen. The story you told creeps the hell out of me, and I’m sorry you’ve been through this. But the only thing that can be done to prevent this is setting the permission level of your photos to family only. Don’t leave it open to public view, it’s a compromise you might not want to make. That said, I’m heading to my own account now to turn some of my currently public photos family only… I didn’t know such creeps were going that low on the internet.

96. Dominik

    on July 8 2008

    @Mark: Everybody is whining at the moment. So that’s okay.
    Basically you’re proving my point - pro photographer can’t make their money with stock/generic nature/landscape photography anymore, because there are thieves and amateurs who are willing to give away ‘good enough’ work for free. (Just like an MP3 is lower quality than a good record - but it is good enough.) So they will look for other jobs - either completely outside photography or within other areas of photography where there is still money to be made.

    Re:the EXIF data - the tools they are using strip the exif data by default. Given what a small proportion of their customers care about this feature they might just have given the “turning on exif for smaller files” a low priority. A company/project their size needs to prioritize tasks this way - a simple economic cost/benefit calculation.

    @Joy: Every single web page can be used in the way you’re describing it. “Showing a file” means “copying to the computer” - just now when you opened this page, it copied all the content to your computer. This is how the technology behind the internet/web works and there will always be ways to exploit that. And nothing, ever, will be really safe on the web. That’s how the web works, not just Flickr. Google Picasa, the old Yahoo photo, even “private” Facebook photos.

97. Flickr-API-Gejammer < LostFocus

    on July 8 2008

    [...] weiß schon gar nicht mehr wie ich auf diesen Blogeintrag, in dem ein Photograph sich darüber beschwert, daß seine Bilder über die Flickr-API erre