Flicker photo rights

[tropicalbats]

While I failed to note the web address, there is a lawsuit ongoing about http://www.flicker.com being given credit for a photo from the site being used in an ad campaign. The suit just wants the girl in the photo to be removed from the ad campaign, but it does bring up the big question:

Does posting a photo to Flicker give them any rights to the photo?

I honestly don't know, but since the cave shots on this DB use Flicker, it would be interesting to look into the fine print to know if the photographers are giving Flicker rights to use the photos without further permission.

Personally, I don't submit photos to any contests or such where use of the photo is given unrestricted to the recipient. Note that National Geographic, Smithsonian, The Washington Post all use this legalese to acquire large numbers of high-quality photos which they can then use without paying the photographer, whether the photo wins the contest or not.

If just putting a photo on Flicker allows them to use it, legally, without credit or payment to the photographer I think that a bum deal.

Hope someone knowledgeable can look into this, as cavers are putting a lot of photos on Flicker via this board and should know if they are giving up rights of payment for usage (or even photographic credit) when doing so.

Keith Christenson

[Wayne Harrison]

It depends on whether you opt out of allowing flickr to use smaller versions of your photos in third-party applications.

By joining Flickr and not opting out of sharing your photos on third-party APIs, you are allowing Flickr to use your photos in the manner you agreed to when you signed up. If you don't opt out, any third-party application can legally use your photos as outlined in the Flickr API agreement, even if your photos are All Rights Reserved. The opt out is in te privacy section of your profile. You can also chose not to make your photos public.

In the instance of flickr photos on this Web site, the widget only pulls up photos that are tagged with cavechat.

If you don't want your Flickr photos used by Flickr in this manner, you must opt out in your privacy setting (see "Hide your photos from public searches ") By not opting out, you are giving permission for your photos to be used by third-party applications.

Under the flickr use agreement, you retain all rights to your photos.

I haven't seen anything that says this "use" allows them to the full-size versions of your photos. If you have questions, flickr has a forum where this, and other issues, are discussed. Also, here's some additional info from their FAQ:

There are a few ways that your photo might be displayed outside of Flickr, but still hosted here. Some of the ways include:

• Blogs
• Tag search applications
• Web-based games (often fun memory based programs)
• Screen savers (displaying most recent uploads, or photos from Explore, etc.)
• Desktop photo display widgets (like Apple's Dashboard or Yahoo! Widgets)

Through the Flickr API, it is possible to construct such websites and applications that query Flickr's publicly available photos via tags or user ID and build dynamic content that displays photos in interesting ways. If they are properly using the Flickr API and abiding by the requirements, the photo as seen on the page will link back to the photo page as it is found in your photostream and it will be for non-commercial use. The actual image itself is not hosted on that site, but the display will probably look different than what you are used to.

Some people are not comfortable with this, and we understand that. To that end, we allow our users to opt-out of applications that query Flickr's database using the API. Your photos will still be searchable on Flickr.com and you will still be able to use third party sites for your own stream if you give them permission via the authorization process. Separate from the API Opt-out, we offer the opportunity for users to hide the 'Blog This' button above your images. This will prevent people from using Flickr's integrated blogging feature found above a photo, though it is not a guarantee that your photo will not be blogged manually.

[joestewart]

Wayne explained it very well.

As far as the lawsuit there are a few wrinkles.

My quick take:

Flickr did not market the photo nor take credit.
The photographer posted it under a Creative Commons license which allowed commercial use.
There was no model release obtained by either the photographer or Virgin. But it may not have been required in the country that Virgin used the photo.

Makes for interesting reading and discussion.

Here are some new.google.com links: http://tinyurl.com/28f6bk

Joe

[Wayne Harrison]

Best discussion on this particular issue (the photo used by Virgin Mobile) is at:

http://www.digitalpodcast.com/podcastnews/2007/09/24/virgin-uses-image-creative-commons-gets-sued/

"Lesson learned, if you care about your intellectual property rights read the instructions - it’s not that complicated."