Flickr given credit for images

[thebarnman]

<p><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/13/The-12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America#page1">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/13/The-12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America#page1</a></p>

<p>In the above story, Flickr is credited for some of the images. I thought the images from flicker came from individuals! </p>

[thebarnman]

<p>Sorry, you need to click on this link to get to the images (one by one.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/04/13/12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America.aspx">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/04/13/12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America.aspx</a></p>

[starvy]

<p>Indeed, the links are on about supermarket rating in the US!</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>I've seen someone who was organising a fashion shoot using example images to show what they wanted to achieve in the shoot credited to that well known photographer "google". Sad really, a photographer should know better :(</p>

[thebarnman]

<p>Hi Starvy, there's an area that shows the credit for those images for each one of the supermarket images and many of them are Flickr</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Is this one of those TOU things that Flickr has the right to use whatever you upload?</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is this one of those TOU things that Flickr has the right to use whatever you upload?</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Where did you see that? Why is Flickr responsible for whatever mistakes The Fiscal Times makes?

 

[pjmeade]

<p>Links from Flickr generally name both the photographer and Flickr. <br>

The website does not claim the copyright on images posted there, each page shows the copyright status for individual images.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If those images came from The Commons on Flickr, then the owners gave up their rights; however, I doubt that's what happened. It's likely that someone at The FiscalTimes right-clicked, stole the images and loaded them onto their site, without compensation to the owners. If they'd been properly linked, the copyright and Flickr user would show.</p>

[thebarnman]

<p>Interesting. </p>

<p>Each one of those pages only shows the copyright and/or only credits the site where the images came from, not the photographer. And, I think photographer rights are mostly stripped away once anyone posts to any one of these social websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr etc. It surprises me so many people are willing to void their rights to their images just so they can share them to the world. At least that's the way things seem to be heading. </p>

<p>When it comes to a website using images from other sources, I don't see anyone crediting the use of that image to the individual photographer. And in fact, I had recently learned websites such as Facebook now strip away any and all metadata of any image uploaded to that site. </p>

<p>Why is that and what rights does a social site really have over the use of one's images? I think there was a law written about that in 1976 that protects the rights of individual images when it comes to others copying or using them. <br>

<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html">http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html</a></p>

<p>Then of course there's the example in the news story that demonstrates laziness when properly crediting the individual's work. Or more properly termed, total disregard for copyright law. Laziness and ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the protection of one's work. If one can't get permission from the photographers in question, the news organization or anyone in that matter does not have the right to use that image. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, most people don't seem to know that simple fact and unfortunately there does not seem to be a simple recourse for making someone comply. Because of that, the abuse of image usage without proper credit will continue. </p>

<p>One way to protect the rights to one's images is with the use of a watermark. Of course a watermark can be removed easily with the use of a program such as Photoshop, however if the watermark is big and or is located on the image in multiple areas, it makes it harder to remove the watermark without damaging or partially obscuring the image. The use of a watermark will also render the image as "not as pretty" or "desirable" to look at. And well, I guess that's the point. The usage of a watermark allows one to share their images to the world with less chance someone will want to copy it and use it on their site. If the image is really that good, then someone will take the time to ask permission for it's use without the watermark.<br>

<br>

If not, there are plenty of other images sitting around the website waiting to be abused. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I think photographer rights are mostly stripped away once anyone posts <br>

<br>

Be better to actually read the terms on the sites than to "think."<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One way to protect the rights to one's images is with the use of a watermark</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The people who seem most concerned about this are ones whose photos have little commercial value and don't understand what goes on when they do. I sell photos to clients. Clients post them on the web. I can't put a watermark on a photo that's sold, that's not what clients buy. Photos can then be lifted from wherever the client put them up. So these types of "solutions" work best for people whose aren't valuable. And then you have to wonder why it becomes such a big deal to them.<br>

<br>

I have one photo that has been on over 100 sites. It was taken from the client site since I didn't upload it originally. I have hit a lot of the sites mostly to see if I can get paid, but have never gotten any money. Some have taken it down. But I can't sell my photos if I put big watermarks on them.</p>

[thebarnman]

<p>Obviously , the watermark is to help prevent the unauthorized use of an image. Once the image is paid for in a limited use situation such as a website, the image without the visual watermark is needed.</p>

<p>However in your case, I've read a hidden watermark service. Sure it costs money, however the watermark is hidden till its copied. I read about it here...</p>

<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100503233611AAPhuBg">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100503233611AAPhuBg</a></p>

[nsfbr]

Posting on Flickr does not cause one to relinquish copyright protection. I fact Flickr clearly allows users to choose the

copyright assignation to individual uploaded photos. The first uploaded photo credited to Flickr in that slideshow is clearly

noted as "all rights reserved" - I checked.

 

I've notified the owner in a comment on the photo's page. I will note that this has nothing to do with Flickr itself. It is

entirely on the fiscaltimes.