Flickr Is About To Sell Off Your Creative Commons Photos

I'm sure many people who chose CC commercial use thought they would get taken up by some big agency and might not have realised that ANYONE can order a print of their work direct from the page and pay Flickr, not the artist. I have always had 'all rights reserved' and will still keep an eye on them!

that does sound like a yahoo tactic. buy a place that was sort of failing. then try to sell off stuff that they never owned.

thing is even with creative commons - they have to attribute a name to them, and i don't think you can sell it like that. i signed up on flickr a long time ago, but found it clumsy to use. fast forward, it's just as bad, and now i have to check settings for the few that i uploaded.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

as it is, i wonder if getty will attack because they have been known to take CC stuff and sell it with their copyright attached. yet they attack and sue everyone.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Mike: "that does sound like a yahoo tactic. buy a place that was sort of failing. then try to sell off stuff that they never owned. "

They don't have to 'own' it, the photographer keeps copyright, but has already agreed to CC commercial use, so it's no good them (the toggers) crying when someone actually takes them up on their generous license terms.

To sell CC commercial use images doesn't the seller have to change the image in some way to sell it or is that another type of license?

Never liked that site myself, but have about 3 images on the site. No worries here

thing is, people who mark their stuff CC do it for "exposure", they don't assume someone will take those images and sell them. they also assume their name will be better known. but most don't attribute their name anyway. now its stock. but if they want to give it to yahoo to sell, its not my business. the 3 i have there now, doesn't have the cc checked off.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Wouldn't Yahoo be the perfect seller to help market your other images? Isn't that the reason for the CC license anyway or is Yahoo selling all the rights to the image?

CC is a way to get your name known without someone really profiting off of it (there are many flavors of CC, and some can get you in trouble if you use it wrong). i think the article said they are selling it as an image, though i do wonder how far they would go. basically CC is like a free sample of your work, its like giving away brownie samples, just to have the guy take everything on your plate, and then sell it down the block. he's profiting from the samples you just gave away, and getting very little credit for them.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I read elsewhere that Flickr will be splitting the pie 51-49 and with its huge market penetration and familiar brand name it will be interesting to see what happens. If there is a way for photographers to benefit I don't really see anything wrong. There has been tons of stuff from flickr available on FAA culled through Getty selling at dump prices with the photographer only getting 20% for a while now. People were already selling through flickr indirectly anyway and now flickr seems to be cutting out the middle man.

If anything is taken for free without the photographer getting paid then it's because the photographer choose the wrong kind of license.

I started a thread about flickr a couple of days ago which was closed. Should I only add negative comments?

Saw this coming. Never got into Flickr. Most people don't understand the value of art. They just give it away, just happy to have someone "like" it.

Never liked flickr. It's an over-crowded cesspool of morons who give their images away to people who promise they will give them credit and make them famous. Unless there is something there from years and years ago, thank goodness I don't have any images there.

Facebook is next. If you think facebook appreciates you because you are a contributing artist, you're clueless. Facebook will use your work to monetize it into cash they can stuff into their shareholder's pocket any way they can. Their lawyers are poring over plans and ideas as you read this. It's a business. It's what they have to do. They owe you nothing. They owe the shareholders everything.

Bottom line? Flickr, facebook, google plus,... as stated above, be aware of and stay current with ANY image sharing site.

Edit: and place a copyright in and on everything you can that appears in public.

I rather like a lot of aspects of their site for image storage alone. The stats in a PRO account are also useful, as is using it to "share" images to other platforms... but I never got into their social network much at all.

Also, never bought into that whole "CC" BS either. I knew this would happen eventually because it was left too vague and open to interpretation by those who'd be prone to take advantage.

I kind of like flickr; great pool of talent there, loads of people just shooting for fun or artistic reasons. I also had my first ever sale through flickr; traded a work in exchange for having some water wells dug in Africa. Flickr is what you make of it and there are works on there that would put many if not most artistes here to shame.

I did always wonder though when flickr would start monetizing their content. And yes, I'm worried about other sites doing the same at some point. But in their Terms of Service, you usually have to grant them explicit permission to do so. With flickr you can control this.

Since we are giving warnings: be careful of contests as these usually involve you giving the company in questions the rights to make money off your image with you only getting chump change - if you get anything at all, that is. And if it's free, you are the product.

With Flickr's 1tb of storage space now, it makes for a convenient place to post low res, all rights reserved images. Using the Getty route there is voluntary. You can choose how you want your images listed (CC, all rights reserved, etc).

There should be a new opt in for this. I wonder how many would. It looks suspiciously that they are seizing the opportunity to take advantage of millions who did not completely understand what they were signing up for. I never trusted them and was waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I've gained interviews, commissioned work and prints from being on Flickr. So I wouldn't knock it in that respect.

I don't agree with this selling of Creative Commons images to make a profit. Where is the photographers cut? or if the photographer is no longer with us, donate it to an arts charity or crowd funding photographers projects.

Flickr should really explain / notify everyone about the various licenses for photographs.

The funny thing is, people on here who sell public domain images as their own, are probably 'bricking it'. Flickr could wipe the floor in selling prints.

From the Flickr site:

"...Participation in the licensed Flickr Marketplace is invite-only, but we are working on tools to allow Flickr members to self-select their photos for review by our Curation team.

Flickr members who don't want their CC-BY or CC-BY-SA photos to be eligible for sale as part of Flickr Wall Art can change the license (e.g. CC-BY-NC, etc.) and the images will be removed from the selection...."

Christopher Berry
Sr. Frontend Engineer "

Justin Green: "I don't agree with this selling of Creative Commons images to make a profit"

Then you would choose 'all rights reserved'.

The people who choose otherwise can't complain about agreed use of their images, ie commercial.

"...Flickr should really explain / notify everyone about the various licenses for photographs. "


Justin, it's part of the information within "Preferences" when you setup your account. You choose which license you prefer. Go to your account at Flickr and double-check your preferences.

Hopefully their screening process to pick participants is good and involves actual human reviewers rather than algorithms..

I've been on Flickr for years but less active there in the past few years since I moved (for me it was more about interacting with my local community).

Nothing I have there is remotely high res.

But I've stumbled over users in the past who were using Flickr as kind of pinterest-style collection board and have uploaded my work on Flickr and marked it as CC work - a license I've never used. In my case, they were, again, too low res to print from, but highlight the problem where you could have someone who has no clue offer a license that makes it eligible for this print program despite not being their work in the first place.

Mark
http://tisdaleart.com

"Then you would choose 'all rights reserved" - no kidding!

"The people who choose otherwise can't complain about agreed use of their images, i.e. commercial"
Some people don't understand or have no knowledge of licences. It would be good if Flickr notified people (email, message in inbox, pop up on screen etc) and reminded them of the various licences. Mentioning it in preferences or mentioning it on a blog just isn't good enough. Some people use flickr and don't understand the licences (i.e. these are people that just upload and go or they could be new to photography.

"What the CC has done is create a legally legitimate infrastructure for those who freely share copyrighted works. Before CC, such activity was technically an infringement, because the the publication of creative works requires consent of copyright holders. CC clears up that technicality, which is great. But it has inadvertently given people the impression that it has affected the licensing industry's pricing structures."

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2011/11/creative-commons-effect-on-photo.html

For this reason, like what Mick said, CC is great for open source platforms/services, but not good for photography.

As mentioned, a user would have to set their licensing to CC on Flickr. If they choose to do so then that is their decision. But I appreciate the thread and the many issues it raises.

Flickr Marketplace: Looks like Flickr is going in several directions now with imagery. This goes beyond CC and more into licensing, which per my last post here, is good for photography:

https://www.flickr.com/marketplace/


A fellow Flickrite just got this invite which seems pretty interesting.

https://www.flickr.com/atos/contributor

We're not suppose to talk 'competitors' so I'm holding onto my opinions, but wanted you to be in the know.

Flickr has backed out of selling CC images on Flickr Wall Art ~ http://blog.flickr.net/2014/12/18/an-update-on-flickr-wall-art/

Flickr got such an ass-kicking over taking the royal micky out of Creative Commons
that they have sent refunds to everyone who bought under their "we sell your stuff -
and then keep your profits" fiasco.

I am glad that they have seen the light!

Thanks, Peggy!


"Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately." (FlickR)

Hallelujah! :D