News.com using Flickr photos

[Xenedis]

Flikr ... I've never understood why so many people do. The terms and conditions have always been fairly awful.

In what way?

At the end of the day, those who do choose to use a site or sites like Flikr, should never forget the saying that "there's no free lunch".

My Flickr account is a "Pro" account (ie, one for which I pay, as opposed to the far more limited free account). My "lunch" was free for the five or ten minutes before I decided that it was worth parting with some legal tender.

Commercial/professionals simply don't use the site for obvious reasons.

I think you might be surprised at how many commercial photographers do have a presence there. Flickr's non-commercial usage requirement notwithstanding, it's unlikely that pro photographers with a presence there would use it as a shop-front; it could simply be another avenue for publicity or contact, much as many commercial organisations have presences on Facebook and Twitter.

[Longshots]

In what way?

First of all I suppose I should point out that my comments referred to the free accounts.

This is in particular why I choose not to consider Flikr as providing something that I trust or have faith in:

CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE

Yahoo!7 does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo!7 the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

* With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo!7 Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.
* With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo!7 removes such Content from the Service.
* With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo!7 Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

My Flickr account is a "Pro" account (ie, one for which I pay, as opposed to the far more limited free account). My "lunch" was free for the five or ten minutes before I decided that it was worth parting with some legal tender.



I think you might be surprised at how many commercial photographers do have a presence there. Flickr's non-commercial usage requirement notwithstanding, it's unlikely that pro photographers with a presence there would use it as a shop-front; it could simply be another avenue for publicity or contact, much as many commercial organisations have presences on Facebook and Twitter.

I dont think I would be I dont doubt that a presence works for some. But if you saw how many ad agencies and graphic designers used it for "inspiration" and eventual production of "mood boards", and "creative/art direction" when commissioning other photographers, you might think differently.

Yes I agree with you about having a presence. But I personally wouldnt be posting non watermarked images. Would I be right in pointing out that Flikr strips the metadata of your images ? Why would that be required ?

If it works for you that's fine. I simply choose not to place faith in the corporate jungle of the Yahoo Groups - which I believe includes News.com.au. And if you read those terms and conditions that usage within the groups I suspect may include News.com.au. Which would answer the OP's question.

I actually dont know many people who have Flikr accounts, because of the lack of faith in the system. That and the repeated misuse of the system - which admittedly has nothing to do with Flikr but more the ignorance or deliberate misuse by many companies and individuals.

[Xenedis]

This is in particular why I choose not to consider Flikr as providing something that I trust or have faith in:

I don't see any problem with that.

It's basically saying that Flickr can use your images on its site to promote itself.

[QUOTE=Longshots;671464]But I personally wouldnt be posting non watermarked images.[/QUOT]

An individual choice, of course. Some do, and some don't.

Would I be right in pointing out that Flikr strips the metadata of your images ?

No, you wouldn't be correct about that.

Flickr doesn't strip the metadata from my images.

Here's one of my images, showing the metadata intact:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/4448510259/meta/

I actually dont know many people who have Flikr accounts

I know plenty of people who have them, but given I have a presence there, that's not at all surprising. :-)

That and the repeated misuse of the system - which admittedly has nothing to do with Flikr but more the ignorance or deliberate misuse by many companies and individuals.

Misuse of images can happen even if you self-host. It's not a problem exclusive to Flickr as you recognise.

Your self-hosted site doesn't give you any protection from misuse of your images.

[Longshots]

I dont think I'm communicating my point very well about Flikr. Yes its a personal choice.

OK Xenidis, the pro version - the paid version is quite different. I was aware of that and I was not referring to that as I previously did mention I was describing my points about the free version.

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata. So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

[Xenedis]

The usage amongst the group of companies that includes Yahoo and Flikr is the point of my personal concern. If you read it correctly its not limiting the use to Flikr alone.

I think we are in agreement that it's a personal choice.

Consider this, though:

How many other online providers or businesses with which you transact have clauses allowing them to pass your information/content to their affiliates?

I have been referring to the free version when it comes to stripping the metada. The free version does appear to strip the metadata.

No, it does not.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_mands/888315999/meta/ as an example.

Flickr users have the option of suppressing the EXIF data. It is still contained in the original image; Flickr just doesn't display it.

If you see an image on Flickr which lacks the EXIF data:

1. the user's software has stripped it before it was uploaded;
2. the user has display of EXIF data disabled; or
3. there wasn't any EXIF data in the first place.

So once the metadata is away, and then you combine that with people not always being aware of how to correctly set up their free accounts, and without a watermark, the user is opening themselves up to being used. Something to be aware of - when using the free version - thats my point.

I don't think the free (or otherwise) status of an account says anything useful about the capability of the user to employ safeguards or methods appropriate for that user's level of concern re the usage of his or her images.

Watermarking (or a lack thereof) is again a personal choice which has no bearing on the hosting site.

The difference between a free Flickr account and a "Pro" account is basically more bandwidth, more storage, more images visible, more sets, and a few other features, none of which has any bearing on EXIF data, privacy or rights. I'd also expect Flickr's T&Cs to apply across the board.

From http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#28:

What do I get with a Pro account?

When you upgrade to a Pro account for just US$24.95 a year (or R$45.90 if you’re in Brazil ) you get all this:

* Unlimited photo uploads (20MB per photo)
* Unlimited video uploads (90 seconds max, 500MB per video)
* The ability to show HD Video
* Unlimited storage
* Unlimited bandwidth
* Archiving of high-resolution original images
* The ability to replace a photo
* Post any of your photos or videos in up to 60 group pools
* Ad-free browsing and sharing
* View count and referrer statistics

Compare that to what you get with a Free Account:

* 100 MB monthly photo upload limit (10MB per photo)
* 2 video uploads each month (90 seconds max, 150MB per video)
* Photostream views limited to the 200 most recent images
* Post any of your photos in up to 10 group pools
* Only smaller (resized) images accessible (though the originals are saved in case you upgrade later)

I really don't think the free vs. paid (and therefore, more feature-laden) status of a Flickr account is a determining factor in the potential for a user's images to be misused.

It can happen to anyone who posts an image on a public site.

Ignorance or vulnerability to image misuse is not confined to people who aren't willing to spend money on image hosting.