When posting images online...

downfader

..ok. This is spurred on from something I saw in another post elsewhere on the forums here.

How many people online check that they are allowed to use an image when they use it online I wonder? I'll admit I've done this myself in the past a few times but I had t stop and think today when I saw an Alamy watermarked image used in one of the discussions.

Alamy is an agency that holds a library of photos for sale. Getty and iStock also do the same. The onus being that to use said image, even online, you have to pay for a non-exclusive license before doing so.

The worry is, and I have a vested interest I'll admit - being an Alamy member, that using the image without paying kind of takes the money out of the photographer's pocket and spoils the reason for it being on the agency books. I think its ok if someone on Flickr puts up a load of images and says "feel free to use this" but perhaps we should show a little caution..?

Discuss.

LittleB0b

downfader wrote:

I think its ok if someone on Flickr puts up a load of images and says "feel free to use this" but perhaps we should show a little caution..?

Flickr has a number of different licence options that users can give thier photos - from don't use this - to full creative commons (attribution, derivatives allowed) - you should check for each photo.

I have some don't use photos and some that i have released under a creative commons (non-commercial attribution) licence.

downfader

LittleB0b wrote:

downfader wrote:

I think its ok if someone on Flickr puts up a load of images and says "feel free to use this" but perhaps we should show a little caution..?

Flickr has a number of different licence options that users can give thier photos - from don't use this - to full creative commons (attribution, derivatives allowed) - you should check for each photo.

I have some don't use photos and some that i have released under a creative commons (non-commercial attribution) licence.

Thanks for that Bob, makes sense. Have to say I've never used Flickr for anything other than browsing or commenting on other's work.

GiantMike

If I copy an image and pass it off as my own, or if a make money out of it, then that's out of order.

However, if I paste a link to an image that anybody could find themselves (because it's on the internet), and I don't claim it's mine, and I don't make money out of it then there is no issue because I am only browsing the image and so is anybody browsing my post.

If a photographer doesn't want me to browse their photos then they shouldn't put them on a PUBLIC INTERNET. Hot-linking is just browsing-by-proxy. It's just simpler to paste a direct link than it is to tell people how to find the image.

I have photos on the internet, and as long as somebody isn't claiming they are theirs or making money out of them , I couldn't care less, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded them onto a PUBLIC INTERNET.

Here's one I prepared earlier.....

crumbschief

Heh Skateboarding triplets this could be a seperate thread.

Ollieda

I don't think there's really any issue of people on this forum claiming photos to be their own. As said above the photos are only linked anyway so there not actually being taken. If you look at the girls in lycra shorts thread then its generally accepted that the poeple posting those pics aren't the people who took them.....either that or there are some very lucky guys out there!!!

If the pics are in the public domain and there's no attempt made to protect them then the artist can't really complain about people linking to them on a forum. Obviously if someone is profiting from someone elses pics then that should be stopped but so far I haven't seen an example of that on these forums.

GiantMike

crumbschief wrote:

Heh Skateboarding triplets this could be a seperate thread.

Quads.

downfader

Ollieda wrote:

I don't think there's really any issue of people on this forum claiming photos to be their own. As said above the photos are only linked anyway so there not actually being taken. If you look at the girls in lycra shorts thread then its generally accepted that the poeple posting those pics aren't the people who took them.....either that or there are some very lucky guys out there!!!

If the pics are in the public domain and there's no attempt made to protect them then the artist can't really complain about people linking to them on a forum. Obviously if someone is profiting from someone elses pics then that should be stopped but so far I haven't seen an example of that on these forums.

OK so lets look at this another way. We often say "public domain" but as said above many images on places like Flickr will publicise how the creator wants to control the image. If we look at newspaper websites there are copyright disclaimers all over the place.

Surely it should be down to us to differenciate between what we can and cannot safely use and leave restricted images alone? I mean we're already seeing certain media companies removing information and content from their online archives and pages. :?

downfader

GiantMike wrote:

crumbschief wrote:

Heh Skateboarding triplets this could be a seperate thread.

Quads.

Looks like they didnt use the scrollbar

crumbschief

Curses,'waves fist' that scroll bar got me again.Ahem anyway back to topic.

GiantMike

downfader wrote:

OK so lets look at this another way. We often say "public domain" but as said above many images on places like Flickr will publicise how the creator wants to control the image. If we look at newspaper websites there are copyright disclaimers all over the place.

But linking is just a shortcut way to let others know that a pic on a public site may be of interest. It's simpler than posting the address in full.

For example, is doing this

any worse than this?

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb23 ... Bike2b.jpg

The only difference I can see is in the IMG coding.

dilemna

Copyright always remains with the photographer who took the image. Whether they enforce their intellectual property rights is another matter. To do so would 1)be very expensive and 2)nigh impossible if it were an image regularly copied or down loaded.

Basically you don't put any image you are too precious about on the net as then you have little control over it. What jurisdiction would you bring any action in as the web is world wide?

As a salutory tale the photographer who took the very famous pic of Che Guavara decades ago that has appeared on billions of T-shirts, cards, political campaigns, books, etc, etc, got diddly squat AFAIK for the image.

Basically if you up load images to the net you should only use small minimal resolution as otherwise you are just enabling people to copy your hi resolution image and print it off in pin sharp clarity A3 or poster size. Always use low res. Plus hi res images take an age to upload as there are so many more pixels in them.

You can try various things that disable an image from being copied but geek people can get around these obstacles fairly easily. Basically the internet is the new Wild West, be careful with your property.