[Resolved]For all the Flickr pro users

Covey

Calina wrote: »

I like the pix.ie service but there are a couple of aspects of that service that I don't necessarily agree with at the moment, eg the inability to limit access to large size files and the adverts. When they go away I will cheerfully look at switching everything across from flickr but until then, the marriage of utility, usability and accessibility offered by flickr pro is the best match for my needs.

Ditto.

Any photo hosting/sharing site that offers no protection at all for uploads has a serious flaw in my opinion.

Anouilh

In what way are photos uploaded to Pix.ie not protected?

What could happen?

Covey

Well, for instance, a lot on here upload full size photos to Flickr or elsewhere and then restrict access to low sized version for public consumption.

Thats not available in pixie, so your full size image is there for all to see or nick as the case may be.

Of course you could upload lower sized images only to Pixie, but aside from being extra work processing, defeats the usage some people here use Flickr for.

Of course all images can be nicked, but full sized high res images is the worst of all scenarios.

Anouilh

I have read that photographers are among the most paranoid people using the Internet and your post explains why this is so.

Uploading photos is one of the most hotly debated subjects I have come across and I took some weeks last year to find out how the various systems worked.

I had found that uploading my photos directly to Blogger had issues that related directly to Googles' copyright contracts, so I started using Flickr instead.

Covey

Anouilh wrote: »

I have read that photographers are among the most paranoid people using the Internet and your post explains why this is so.

Uploading photos is one of the most hotly debated subjects I have come across and I took some weeks last year to find out how the various systems worked.

I had found that uploading my photos directly to Blogger had issues that related directly to Googles' copyright contracts, so I started using Flickr instead.

In what way exactly am I paranoid?

Anouilh

Sweet Heavens!

Does everybody "here" have to think that every post is a personal attack? (I presume your question is meant in a joking manner, BTW.)

Photographers, because their work is easily reproduced and often "borrowed" by editors, tend to be, well..., more paranoid than the average chat room poster.

Here is a list of top sites for anybody wishing to start a
Photo-Blog:

http://www.thelatestone.com/most-used-website.html

Calina

Anouilh wrote: »

I have read that photographers are among the most paranoid people using the Internet and your post explains why this is so.

Anouilh, I would love to see where you get this from. Get me a link that says photographers are amongst the most paranoid people on the internet please. If you really want paranoia, there are probably a few threads in Conspiracy Theories worth looking at. In a best case scenario, check out some of the antivaccination websites.

Most people want some idea of what other people do with their photographs. A significant number of mine have wound up on people's blogs and FaceBook and Bebo profiles. They don't always ask first. Absent good manners, any photographer is going to want to protect their assets from being used without their knowledge and amongst the ways you can do this is 1) watermark the images or 2) limit access to high resolution files.

In any case, Covey's post does not explain any thing; it only highlights that he prefers to limit access to high resolution versions of his photographs to people of his choosing. I don't blame him for that given that Virgin Mobile in Australia got into trouble for mis-using a flickr photograph without an adequate model release and a 17 year old girl had to fight very hard to get her image removed from the front of an adult content DVD in the US.

Covey

Anouilh - My reply was a direct response to your question

"In what way are photos uploaded to Pix.ie not protected?

What could happen? "

I assumed yours to be a direct reply to my answer, especially as you state " and your post explains why this is so" No I wasn't joking.

As for "Borrowing" copyright works, well in another man's parlance thats called "Stealing".

AnCatDubh

Calina wrote: »

I don't blame him for that given that Virgin Mobile in Australia got into trouble for mis-using a flickr photograph without an adequate model release and a 17 year old girl had to fight very hard to get her image removed from the front of an adult content DVD in the US.

I thought in this case it was that the original photographer was at fault for taking a photograph which they obviously were entitled to do but releasing it into a form of creative commons licence which 'legitimately' allowed Virgin Mobile's marketing company to scoop up the image off flickr and use for commercial purposes. Its been a while since I looked up the detail of the case but perhaps with no model release they were at least in some part culpable.

Yesterday, I placed an image on WikiCommons and agonised over what licence I would apply to it. There wasn't anything there that said please contact me if you want to use this image. I think I am becoming more paranoid as time passes which in my case is irrational and unfounded. Ah well.

Anouilh

Don't worry. We're all in the same boat, it seems:

http://www.kiwirant.co.nz/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6987


http://www.adidap.com/2008/10/02/38-of-photographers-are-paranoiac-poll-results/

I always use the "All Rights Reserved" licence.
Anybody who really wants to use my photos can contact me.

Calina

Creative commons aside, models still need to give their consent for commercial usage of their image. The mistake was more Virgin's I would say.

Anouilh, looking at that NZ post, you appear to have most of the posts in the thread concerned which initially was on a completely different topic. The other survey I wouldn't count as being representative of the overwhelming community of online posters given that all of 150 people replied to it. As pointed out previously, Flickr has 33million users.

As an illustration of your position, it is not adequate.

In any case, TJM who did a talk on photographer rights the last time we did Share the Knowledge pointed out that Creative Commons as it applied here was murky and he recommended that photographers always held onto rights up front.

Either way, this thread is wandering way off topic. If you have a special interest in copyright issues again, please open a new thread.

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I thought in this case it was that the original photographer was at fault for taking a photograph which they obviously were entitled to do but releasing it into a form of creative commons licence which 'legitimately' allowed Virgin Mobile's marketing company to scoop up the image off flickr and use for commercial purposes. Its been a while since I looked up the detail of the case but perhaps with no model release they were at least in some part culpable

Yeah from what I remember it was all down to the photographer. There -was- some debate about just who was responsible for procuring the model release. I think majority opinion came down on the side of Virgin (not being responsible), as the createive commons license that he put it up under has some clause about the work being 'free from impediment' or something similar. Can't remember the details. Essentially Virgin completely in the right, no need for that 'legitimately' in quotes :-)

-edit- see below -edit-

Calina

Okay, corrected on that. Thanks.

DaireQuinlan

Calina wrote: »

Creative commons aside, models still need to give their consent for commercial usage of their image. The mistake was more Virgin's I would say.

Just saw this, CC actually blurs the issue a little. Ordinarily yeah, I could put an image into the public domain. If you wanted to use it commercially then you'd have to procure releases from any identifiable individuals in the photo. CC has some waiver that is meant to state that that has been done with respect to any individuals in the picture.

I think its version one of CC ...

http://labs.creativecommons.org/licenses/zero/1.0/legalcode

Clause 3.

Which, actually, upon reading it, says exactly the opposite of what I've said above. Hmmm ...

DaireQuinlan

Calina wrote: »

Okay, corrected on that. Thanks.

Nope, actually my understanding of it was all wrong. The two issues are completely seperate.

Anouilh

No worries.

This thread has helped sort out many thoughts.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3073722557/sizes/o/

Anouilh

Covey wrote: »

...

Thats not available in pixie, so your full size image is there for all to see or nick as the case may be.
...

Of course all images can be nicked, but full sized high res images is the worst of all scenarios.

I've just uploaded again to Pix.ie this morning.

If you make a JPEG with low DPI it should be less attractive to thieves.

There is one advantage in Pix.ie that has just become clear.
The code fits smoothly into Boards.ie and there is no mandatory link-back required, as the photo itself can be clicked and links to the poster's profile page.

Very impressed...

Covey

Covey wrote: »

Of course you could upload lower sized images only to Pixie, but aside from being extra work processing, defeats the usage some people here use Flickr for.

As I said above and DPI has nothing to do with it.

Anouilh

There are many ideas available to minimize problems of piracy.

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/1405508489281010341

Watermarks are a great deterrent.
They usually mean I do not revisit a site that uses them, as they are often quite ugly.

It seems that Facebook is the top photo upload site for photo sharing.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=facebook%2C+flickr%2C+photobucket

There is one reason to be interested in user trends.

If a company stops putting resources into the system you choose, it could become less attractive to viewers.

I use Zooomr from time to time, but it does not even have enough usage to make an impact on the International graph.