Librarian by Day

73 responses to “The Danger of Using Creative Commons Flickr Photos in Presentations”

1. 

   dick vestdijk

   January 27, 2013

   Thanks for the informative message. The default setting is not CC licence on Flickr, so for the original posting of the picture, the uploader must have specifically chosen the CC licence. Indeed retroactively changing your licence seems impossible, but the burden of prove would be on the side of the user. May be in the Flickr logfiles the change could be traced.
   Similar discussion – with useful comment on Flickr groups is here:
   http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/61604/?search=creativecommons

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Bobbi Newman

      January 27, 2013

      Thanks for correcting me its been so long since I created my account I can’t remember the default. That does make more sense.

      LikeLike

      Reply
2. 

   Darcy Moore

   January 27, 2013

   Good post.

   I used @cogdog’s attribution tool for Flickr http://darcymoore.net/2011/04/22/flickr-cc-attribution-and-other-online-helpers/ and am not certain what happens if someone changes their license. The code, to copy and paste to the blog post, only appears in the Firefox or Chrome via Greasemonkey tool if the license is one that permits sharing. I have many CC licensed images at my blog but increasing try to use my own photographs wherever possible (which are all available for sharing): http://www.flickr.com/photos/darcymoore/

   @Darcy1968

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Mark

   January 27, 2013

   Default license on Flickr is All rights reserved. It is quite easy to change the license on a photo on Flickr; whether it is legally binding after the fact is a matter for the courts. As you said, proving the license at the time you used it is next to impossible. Perhaps a screen shot of the page including the license at the time you use it but that seems like a lot of trouble.

   I have not had this problem but then more people use my photos than I use others. I do use quite a few for desktop backgrounds but considering no one but me really ever sees them I consider that fair use. I also keep a copy of the link in with the image [via Finder on Macs] so I know where and from whom I got it if the need ever arises.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Bobbi Newman

      January 27, 2013

      I think you’re right trying to take (and organize) screenshots of all the photos I use would be way too much work. I do put at link to the photos in the slides

      LikeLike

      Reply
4. 

   Mace Ojala

   January 27, 2013

   Yeah Flickr doesn’t apply Creative Commons by default.

   Have you looked at some technical metadata of the images, there might be some information regarding immaterial property rights (IPR) and timestamps in the EXIF metadata?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Fi

   January 27, 2013

   It is worth noting that CC licenses are not revocable.

   See: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F

   and

   http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Bobbi Newman

      January 27, 2013

      Thanks Fi. Though it would still fall on the user to prove the license at the time of use and that is more complicated

      LikeLike

      Reply
6. 

   Susan Tockgo

   January 27, 2013

   Hi Bobbie,

   Thanks for your enlightening blogpost. I use CC photos of Flickr often for my library and Toastmasters. However, I have annotated on the photo with flick account information rather than a separate slide with credits. Do you think it would make it clearer for folks that I am attributed the rightful use of owner of the photo? I would love your opinion. Thanks!

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Bobbi Newman

      January 27, 2013

      Hi Susan
      Over the years I have done both – a link on the slide and a final slide with credits. I’m not sure which is better or clearer to the audience. I think of them of two different forms of attribution – sort of like end notes vs. footnotes just a different style

      LikeLike

      Reply
7. 

   Mark

   January 27, 2013

   As to whether CC-licenses are revocable or not would require a test case in court. I do appreciate that Creative Commons tries to spell this all out in advance–but who reads licenses?–but the final word would have to come from a court. As I am sure you are aware, Bobbi, recently the Supreme Court took some materials out of the public domain and gave the copyrights back to the former owners. If THAT can happen then I have no doubt that the intention of the Creative Commons could be overturned by a court.

   I had meant to mention earlier in regards to whether your site is commercial or not is a highly contested one within the CC-NC community. You have amazon (I assume affiliate) links which means you do generate money from your site. Now, I doubt that adds up to much as I imagine your donation button probably doesn’t even cover your hosting and such. But to some in the community that is all quite irrelevant. There was a big brouhaha over this a couple years back and CC did a fairly in-depth survey and study of the various clauses around their licenses, but most importantly what people consider non-commercial to include and not include. The spread on that is as diverse as any can be, which is why nowadays many folks who support CC-licensing say to never use NC licenses.

   Im my opinion your site and your presentations are non-commercial. But others can easily, as could I, make the opposite argument. Just something to be aware of around CC NC licenses.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      Bobbi Newman

      January 28, 2013

      Excellent points Mark.

      LikeLike

      Reply
   2. 

      Branko Collin

      February 7, 2013

      I remember part of that commercial/non-commercial discussion. One example given was that of an indie art film festival that refused films released under an NC license. The film makers were puzzled by this, because they saw the festival as pretty much the antithesis of a commercial festival, but the organiser – the person paying all the bills – knew how much money was going in and out. He saw his venture as decidedly commercial, even if it did not give that impression on the outside.

      In fact, giving the impression that you are not in it for the money can be quite effective if you are marketing to people outside the mainstream.

      LikeLike

      Reply
8. 

   Michael.

   January 27, 2013

   Three things I want to comment on:
   1) Commercial and non-commercial are very difficult to determine. As such, I make a point of never using photos that have a non-commercial license. Too much hassle. (I also now do not use photos with a share-alike provision. Same reason, too much hassle.)

   2) People don’t read the Creative Commons licenses. That includes people who are offering their photos (and other material) for use, and people who are using the photos (etc.). That’s a massive problem because in many cases neither side really knows their obligations or what has been agreed to.

   E.g. every CC license has attribution as a requirement. Yet I often find photos that don’t specify how the photo should be attributed. If it’s on Flickr I would then link to the photo page and mention the user name (and/or real name) of the person. Quite often though, I see bloggers and others who just say “from Flickr” or similar.
   E.g. Every CC license (iirc) requires that you link to the license text (or to include the full text). Guess how many times people don’t do that…

   Umm, Bobbie, you don’t appear to be following the license for the image on this page… ^_^

   3) Assuming you did take the trouble to record that the particular license applied to a particular photo at a particular time (via, e.g. screenshots), I doubt that a court would overturn that license. Even if the person who licensed the image originally didn’t realise that it wasn’t meant to be revocable.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Ken

   January 27, 2013

   This is a great post!! I really like your longer term more viable solution being to build your own library. I often get asked about the images I use in my presentations, especially since I do not list any references, and I proudly share that ALL the images are mine. It takes time to build a reasonable library, but the journey and creativity is part of the fun. This is also why I encourage folks to do a Project 365, which by nature will help you build a library of stock images. The other item I’d like to share is that unless a Copyrighted image has been registered with the US Copyright office, the author/photographer will not have much legal ground to stand on. Simply putting that little C watermark on an image is not enough. I do take the time each year to register large blocks of my images with the US copyright office.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Theo Kuechel

    January 28, 2013

    There’s a really simple solution to this dilemma – Imagestamper http://s1.imagestamper.com/login.jsp

    With one click on a toolbar button you can record the CC details including date, licence version and timestamps when you accessed the image on Flickr http://goo.gl/sOjqu

    Hope that helps. Theo

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Bobbi Newman

       January 28, 2013

       Thank you for the suggestion Theo very helpful!

       LikeLike

       Reply
11. 

    Dave Foord

    January 28, 2013

    There are 2 options that could have been used here to keep a record of the licence at the time of usage. Firstly I use a service called Xpert from the university of Nottingham, which attaches the licence to the image in a black bar at bottom of image.

    Secondly if I have found an image via Flickr, then I use a website called imagestamper which records the licence for each image I use at the point in time that I have used it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Bobbi Newman

       January 28, 2013

       Thank you for the suggestions Dave

       LikeLike

       Reply
12. 

    AlisonW

    January 28, 2013

    This is indeed an issue with images and other ‘shareable’ information, not just from Flikr. If the image you use has been imported to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia you will find a certification of the licence and the date it applied, which you should be able to rely on.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Simon

    January 28, 2013

    On the commercial/non-commercial issue, the issue is not so much whether you’re directly trying to make a profit from use of the image, as whether the use is directly or indirectly used in connection with a business or profession, or money-raising activities. I don’t know enough about your situation and blog, but if you were a professional librarian, and the presentation that the image was used in was in some way (even if indirectly) promoting your professional activities (typically with a blog, raising profile within the industry), or used to promote the library, then that would clearly be commercial use, and CC licences would not cover you.

    Simon

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. 

       Eric Hellman

       February 1, 2013

       Simon’s opinion here is profoundly uninformed. Bobbi’s use of the image is well within the sphere of non-commercial use. For example, most libraries have educational public purposes, and their promotion would be inherently non-commercial. Her blog posts similarly have an non-profit, educational purpose. Also, most affiliate links generate revenue that is de minimus, and thus do not affect the determination of NC-ness. I am not a lawyer, so do not rely on my opinion, but I’ve hired expensive ones, and I know this shit.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

       Reply
       1. 

          Simon

          February 1, 2013

          You may not be a lawyer – but I am.

          I am not passing judgement on whether the blogger’s use of the image in this particular case is commercial on non-commercial, as I already said, I don’t know enough about Bobbi’s background, and I haven’t followed the blog etc. to know about the use made of the image.

          What I am saying is that, if one is making a living from a profession – such as a librarian – and the image is used in the context of one’s profession as such, for example a professional blog, then the use would be commercial. It doesn’t really matter what your profession is – banker, lawyer, teacher, artist, librarian, photographer – if the blog is part of promoting your position in that profession i.e.. a form of marketing, and you make your living from it, then it’s commercial.

          LikeLike

          Reply
          1. 

             Eric Hellman

             February 4, 2013

             Is there case law to cite, or is that just language a lawyer would use to intimidate a litigation target?

             LikeLike

             Reply
             1. 

                Simon

                February 4, 2013

                “is that just language a lawyer would use to intimidate a litigation target?”

                There is no litigation target – you seem to be implying that I’m preparing a case against someone here. There is no skin off my nose if people abuse copyright. Quite the contrary, I just made a few hundred dollars because a musician used one of my images on his blog without permission. That’s fine by me. But I think people should be aware of the risks and have fair warning.

                There is a fair (brief) summary of when a use is non-commercial here: http://www.thehelpful.com/creativecommons/what-is-commercial-use.html. That is a pro-CC article, so not trying to scare anyone, rather trying to encourage their use.

                If you use images to further your profession (and I believe being a librarian is a profession, assuming one is drawing a salary and not doing it as an amateur) that is clearly commercial.

                The Creative Commons organisation themselves are frustratingly vague about their own definition of “non-commercial”, but they commissioned a survey about it to catch a range of opinions from both users and licensors of how they would view the meaning of it in practise. It’s not only a legal issue, this ties in with public perception, both among users and licensors, and for that matter the legal definition of ‘commercial’ is going to be strongly influenced by the way the term is understood in practise:-

                Click to access Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf

                Read from p.57 onwards (use by an individual). A “professional, does not make money from use” is firmly in the “commercial” use, according to both users and licensors:-

                “For example, if the individual in question is… a professional using the work in her/his professional context, users rate the use as strongly commercial. However, if users know the professional makes no money from the use, then the rating is significantly lower, though still more commercial than noncommercial.”

                Likewise, us by a not-for-profit organisation such as a state run library is still seen as strongly commercial by both users and creators:

                “In this exercise both creators and users regard use by the government or a state run entity as commercial (ratings of 64.4 and 74.3, respectively), with only a few respondents in each group rating such use as “definitely” noncommercial (4% of creators, 9% of users).”

                So, according to Creative Commons own survey – use by an individual on a professional blog = commercial.

                Use by a state run entity for a charitable purpose or social good = still commercial. The latter only starts to drop into ‘non-commercial’ if it’s a private not-for-profit for charitable purposes, even then only just, maybe.

                LikeLiked by 1 person

                Reply
             2. 

                Mike

                June 8, 2013

                Simon, if you are in fact a lawyer and are intending to provide legal advice, please follow up with with your full name and who you practice with (the name of the firm, their location and contact details).

                Posting under a random first name and claiming to be a “lawyer” is really not professional. If you are in fact a lawyer, you should have no problem standing behind your words and letting us know who you are and who you work for so that we can then confirm your advice.

                LikeLike

                Reply
             3. 

                Simon

                June 9, 2013

                I didn’t post my biography here because there’s no need for it. However, if you want it, there’s a brief biography of me here: http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do

                SImon

                LikeLike

                Reply
14. 

    Chris

    January 28, 2013

    The confusion around Slideshare is interesting. Did the original CC licence permit you to upload the photo to a commercial third party service, even just as part of your presentation? After all, Slideshare still make money from people using the site for free by advertising against uploaded content. Would that rule out using Slideshare for presentations containing non-commercial CC photos? It might do, I’ve no idea.

    I tend to follow Michael’s first point – stick to photos with a commercial licence (or do what you suggest and use your own photos). Even for things I put on my personal (industry-focussed) website, I’m open to the inference that I’m advertising myself for paid training/consultancy/speaking gigs.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Bobbi Newman

       January 28, 2013

       Chris
       Since I discovered the photo on Flickr which is a third party service that is commercial and offers similar pro version to Slideshare I would think posting to Slideshare would fall under share-a-like

       LikeLike

       Reply
    2. 

       Adrian Midgley

       July 8, 2015

       The CC licences allow passing on of the image or whatever under the same conditions you are licenced to receive it (generally everyone is licenced to receive it) and use it, with the same conditions applied onward.

       This is intrinsic to their purpose.

       LikeLike

       Reply
15. 

    Michael Rasmussen (@MichaelRpdx)

    January 28, 2013

    While it may be a PITA, checking the EXIF tags for copyright information or lack thereof can provide you additional information or clues. If someone has embedded their licencing information in the image metadata you can be assured they’ve given the matter some thought.

    And use imagestamper if the exif data is silent on this point.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Simon

    January 28, 2013

    I thought I might explain a bit further why non-commercial CC licences wouldn’t permit use on a blog linked to professional activity. It’s a common misconception that ‘if I’m not making money from the image then it’s not commercial use’.

    Most of what we might think of as archetypal commercial use of images is typically in the form of profile-raising rather than directly making money from the image (unless you happen to be in the business of selling images like a stock library). A large billboard for Hershey bars above the freeway, or a TV commercial, don’t directly make money for Hershey, there is no ‘click-through’ sales button next to the commercial – they are intended to raise the profile of the Hershey brand in people’s minds. It’s a very indirect form of commercial use – but a photo blown up on a billboard is clearly being used commercially.

    A professional blog is similar – it’s a kind of advert or profile-raising exercise for the person’s professional life, from which they earn a living. Just like a TV commercial. A profession is a business. Whether or not there is any direct profit made from e.g. running a blog doesn’t matter.

    It’s why the Creative Commons license doesn’t define ‘commercial’ as ‘making money from’ or similar, it defines it as “directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”:

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode (see clause 4b)

    The words ‘commercial advantage’ are used precisely because most advertising is aimed at profile-raising for a business/profession.

    BTW, there was a comment above to the effect that, for an image which is not registered “the author/photographer will not have much legal ground to stand on”. This is misleading – while it’s true that the procedure for claiming damages is different for a registered image and that the owner is likely to be able to claim more substantial statutory damages, non-registered images are also protected by copyright law (and whether or not they have a copyright symbol on or near them), and open the user to damages for unauthorised use.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Adrian Midgley

       July 8, 2015

       Interesting.

       You might find the Ganfyd Licence, which is intended to allow any registered medical practitioner (doctor) to copy, display, disseminate, _and edit_ the collaborative textbook material on http://ganfyd.org

       We obviously used CC as a model, although it is _not_ a CC licence.

       Our intention was not aimed at commercial or not, but at assurance that anyone who edits the material is qualified to a particular level. I rather think there is scope for other professions to generate a family of such licences.

       LikeLike

       Reply
17. 

    Ron Scheurer

    January 28, 2013

    It strikes me as ridiculous for anyone who posts pictures on the internet,including news agencies,to think that those pictures will not be copied and used in many different ways, with or without attribution. So what is it with all of this licensing business which is spreading to all manner of things like a wild fire on a windy day?

    Will the “it’s mine” mind set even spread to the an attempt to copy right ideas? It has, but not seriously as a legal or financial issue.

    Imagine two kids in grade school. Fairly close in time they spot a counterfeit bill on the pavement. The kid who gets there first. “it’s mine.” The second kid, “I saw it first.” Who wins? Who loses?

    Turns out the bill was printed on a copy machine. Answer: Eliminate copy rights on ALL digital images. The internet is a Commons of Information. Let’s not legislate it to death.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Simon

       January 28, 2013

       At the risk of stating the obvious, without copyright the internet couldn’t function – not effectively at any rate. Corporations and individuals can’t share content unless they know they have a reasonable amount of control over how content is distributed. If we all had he right to copy and mirrow the CNN’s website however we wamted, then CNN wouldn’t be able to post content. If my clients could use digital files however they wished without a licence, then I couldn’t give them digital files. If I could use your family photos from Facebook to do whatever I wanted with them, that would make sharing family photos on Facebook difficult.

       The BBC has a wonderful programme of documentaries, films, dramas available online, if the internet were a copyrit free zone, these simply couldn’t be offered. You wouldn’t be able to watch films through subscription services. The internet would be pretty much dead.

       As I say, apologies for stating what ought to be the blindingly obvious, but it seems to get forgotten too often.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

       Reply
       1. 

          Simon

          January 28, 2013

          apols for typos – can’t get the hang of the ipad keyboard

          LikeLike

          Reply
18. @copyrightgirl | UML Teaching & Learning Team

    January 30, 2013

    […] https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Gwyneth Jones

    January 31, 2013

    As always, dear Bobbi, you bring stuff out that I’ve never thought of!

    Imagine revoking a CC lic – ohmyword! [clutches pearls] perish the thought!

    But srsly, if you’re weaning yourself off Flickr CC what are you using as an alternative for those of us who strive to make our presos on Slideshare (!) graphically delicious!?

    I mean, I’ve splurged for iStock photos before but Flickr CC is my bread and butter source! Oh and I do pay for the educators PRO version of Slideshare & am very happy with it. Customized profile page & bigger uploads! Yum!

    Cheers!
    ~Gwyneth Jones
    The Daring Librarian

    LikeLike

    Reply
    1. 

       Bobbi Newman

       February 1, 2013

       I’m working to create a collection of photos but that takes time. I’ve been using iStock but here are some others I’ve bookmarked https://delicious.com/librarianbyday/stockphotos

       LikeLike

       Reply
       1. 

          Ned Potter

          February 15, 2013

          Oh those I use Morguefile increasingly, because they’re licensed for commercial use, so I don’t need to worry about all this stuff so much…

          p.s Can’t believe you’re the CEO of Slideshare, Bobbi! Kept that one quiet, eh? 🙂

          LikeLike

          Reply
          1. 

             Bobbi Newman

             February 15, 2013

             ;-

             Thanks for the recommendation of Morguefile I’ll check it out!

             LikeLike

             Reply
20. 

    Eric Hellman

    February 1, 2013

    This is a topic I recently wrote about (not published yet, sorry. watch go-to-hellman.) A few points:

    1. CC licences cannot be revoked. They are conveyed to the recipient when the covered work is copied. The time of use is immaterial.

    2. To be durable, the receiver must be able to prove a chain of conveyance, which can be difficult. To defend against an infringement claim, you need to be able to document that you were offered the work under a CC license, and that the offerer was either the legitimate copyright-holder at the time of conveyance, or can similarly prove conveyance of a license. With Flickr, the main danger is that a user has uploaded images that belong to someone else.

    3. CC copyright trolling scams have been reported by photographer Dan Heller http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-profit.html

    4. The NC license is a can of worms. But the current situation is such that it would be a problem both sides of a potential litigation. http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/10/creative-commons-nc-non-commercial.html

    5. I wish you hadn’t title the post “the danger…” That would be like giving a title like “The danger of going to the library” to a story like http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/04/man-who-killed-father-with-crossbow-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Claire V. Brisson-Banks

    February 1, 2013

    Bobbi,

    Thanks for this write up it definitely points out flaws in the system.

    I’ve been using photos from Wikipedia Commons in combination with my own photos and various clip arts from Microsoft to avoid problems and usually write to the individual for permission to use a photo from Flickr regardless of the CC license if I do need a photo. I then put their response in a folder in my email so it is not lost. If I’m using the photo in a presentation I copy and paste the email in the notes section below the slide the picture is on along with putting the by line at the bottom of the photo in the slide.

    It was good to see the other comments about other steps to take like the image time stamper and other tools to help in the use of photos. Pictures do make the difference is all we do.

    I do agree that most do not bother to read the CC information but I find if presenting one needs to make sure they are ok with using the pictures

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    Scott

    February 3, 2013

    It’s interesting that you felt it necessary to send your second response. Any legal issues or concerns were settled with your first response, and then his reply.
    To continue the correspondence after “As long as the slide show is free I am ok with my photo being used.” was entirely fruitless.

    To an outside observer of this conversation it seems you’ve taken offense at [redacted]’s characterization of your blog, and have spiraled into defending it snottily, and with terribly weak arguments.

    “You know I’ve never had anyone say that my site is commercial in nature.”
    (Everyone else thinks my site is great.)

    “I am a librarian and write the blog for free.”
    (Look at my sacrifices.)

    “I don’t even have ads I have a donate button which I assure you does not even cover the cost of hosting the site every year.”
    (Yes I do get money from the site, but that doesn’t count since it isn’t that much.)

    The point is, this was [redacted]’s intellectual property, and he/she had concerns over its use. Concerns that were addressed, and then quelled by your initial response. Not to mention [redacted] wasn’t being 1/10 of the jerk that I am now.

    For you to continue arguing via some need to have the last say was infantile at best.
    For you to include the continued irrelevant conversation in this post about Creative Commons should strike you as embarrassing upon reflection.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. Linkubator Sunday Roundup | January 28 – February 3 | Library as Incubator Project

    February 3, 2013

    […] Librarian by Day shares “The Danger of Using Creative Commons Photos in Presentations” – definitely worth a […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Jay Cuthrell

    February 5, 2013

    I just noticed a sudden spike in my Flickr stats. I’ve now included this image in my Creative Commons sightings set. Thank you so much for using this image in a creative and thought provoking manner. 🙂

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    Stig Rudeholm

    February 7, 2013

    I’m just an amateur, but I love seeing my work used in different contexts, so anyone is more than welcome to use any of my flickr photos for whatever purpose, including commercial. Of course, I don’t know if anyone find any of my pictures useful, but if you do, please do use them. 🙂 They are all licensed CC-BY.
    http://stigrudeholm.roll2dice.com/2012/01/17/flickr-photostream/

    

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    0-43

    February 7, 2013

    How about using an external service such as archive.is to store a copy of the page in question?

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. Att vi ändrar oss är en av svårigheterna med CC – varför är inget enkelt? | Kristina Alexandersons blogg

    February 7, 2013

    […] sin bloggpost hänvisar Glyn Moody till Bobbi Newman som berättar om en incident där hon anklagas för att ha gjort intrång på en fotografs rättigheter i och med att han […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    Presenting Well « Geeky Artist Librarian

    February 18, 2013

    […] Relevant CAUTION about using Flickr CC images […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. Links of Interest : February 19, 2013 « A Modern Hypatia

    February 19, 2013

    […] Commons and later use – a question of image permissions from Bobbi […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. TECH2002 Creativity & Creative Commons » |

    February 28, 2013

    […] https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    TECH2002 Creativity & Creative Commons | Rob Watson Media

    February 28, 2013

    […] The Creative Commons philosophy is driven by those who believe in free and open exchange of digital content and to create a middle way between “…the extremes of copyright-control, and the uncontrolled exploitation, of intellectual property.” The licence was inspired by the open source movement and follows the principles enshrined within copyleft which encourage the free distribution of works and any derivatives made of it.” http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/korn-oppenheim https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. Cool Toys Pic of the Day – ImageStamper | Cool Toys U

    March 8, 2013

    […] Librarian by Day blog post: The Danger of Using Creative Commons Flickr Photos in Presentations https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Cassie

    March 11, 2013

    I will use cc attribution images and make digital art with them because they can be used commercially per the license and I add them to my Zazzle store but I have had some users change the license and then say I was stealing their work so I have now started taking a screenshot of the page so if they change it I can prove I did not steal it. I do not steal images for profit as some have tried to claim.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply
34. 

    Margery

    April 1, 2013

    An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a coworker who has been doing a little homework
    on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast due to the
    fact that I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So let me reword this.

    … Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this
    issue here on your web site.

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. Scott's Uni Blog » Blog Archive » Creative Commons

    April 2, 2013

    […] any time which can put me in breach of licensing laws. This happened to Bobbi Newman as she writes here. I am starting to see the wisdom in trying to use images that I have personally taken as this is […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    Mike

    June 8, 2013

    There is really no point in entering a dialogue with a photographer who contacts you after the fact to argue about your usage of a CC photo. If they selected a CC license, and you used it, they cannot revoke AFTER you have used the photo. Non-commercial simply means not being used to advertise products or services. It can be used on a site that makes money, it can be used by a newspaper that makes money, it can be used by a for-profit magazine to illustrate a piece about banks next to an advertisement for shoes and it is still not “commercial.” Commercial, in the world of photography, ALWAYS means ADVERTISING.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply
37. 

    Ian Sanderson

    June 11, 2013

    Most of my photos on flickr are Creative Commons Non-commercial (I am not the person mentioned in the OP). The CC licence is displayed on the photopage. Can I suggest you take a screenshot of that page at the date you use the image and devise some form of date verification – email it to someone so it will have a date stamp, or some other method.

    CC is not the default setting on flickr. To set a photo as CC you have to make a conscious decision to change the licence. That does not mean that people who do it understand the implications of the change.

    I have had confusion the other way. As an example, a major international airline used one of my photos and claimed that, as the photo was used in a blog on their site, and not in an advertisement, the use was not commercial.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    Gary Robertson

    August 23, 2013

    Hello –

    Enjoyed your commentary — interested me greatly since most of my Flickr photos are CC licensed and I strongly support the Creative Commons concept.

    Can certainly appreciate your concerns with Flickr’s CC licensed photos, though. Should add — seems to me — your site is unequivocally non-commercial. In fact, seems to be the very kind of site that CC was intended for ….

    But the thing is — there are broad and growing problems with Creative Commons and not just those over at Flickr.

    My own case — probably not untypical — finding more and more of my CC photos posted on blatantly commercial sites. In addition, even some photos that are posted on non-commercial sites have not been linked back (as required by the CC license) to the original Flickr page — or — in many cases even if they are linked back — are being systematically “redirected” to commercial sites.

    Personally — hope Yahoo/Flickr will become more pro-active in enforcement — difficult as that might prove to be — in regards to its CC licensed photos.

    I’m leaving my Flickr photos licensed as Creative Commons — feel the advantages still outweigh the disadvantageous.

    Just my $00.02

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    TECH2002 Creativity & Creative Commons » Rob Watson

    October 5, 2013

    […] The Creative Commons philosophy is driven by those who believe in free and open exchange of digital content and to create a middle way between “…the extremes of copyright-control, and the uncontrolled exploitation, of intellectual property.” The licence was inspired by the open source movement and follows the principles enshrined within copyleft which encourage the free distribution of works and any derivatives made of it.” http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/korn-oppenheim https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    H3GM

    October 19, 2013

    I confess I was unaware of the creative commons license as it pertained to flickr. This is a great discussion to see and to know about so that I can make sure the pictures I want private can stay that way.

    LikeLike

    Reply
41. When the cosumer becomes the consumed | The Global Idiot

    December 3, 2013

    […] surrounding Creative Commons that is worth addressing and people should be aware of. Similarly, Bobbi Newman describes the problem she encountered, whereby it was almost too easy to change the […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
42. 

    Creative Commons: a conversation | The Zumba Librarian

    December 19, 2013

    […] https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
43. Tragedy of the Virtual Commons? | Rethinking Being Social

    March 6, 2014

    […] https://librarianbyday.net/2013/01/27/the-danger-of-using-creative-commons-flickr-photos-in-presentat… (Flickr librarian example) […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
44. The Beauty of the Public Domain | Visceral Concepts

    November 19, 2014

    […] seemed like a great way to find images with the CC 2.0 or CC 3.0 license attached. Then I ran into this article. It outlines the problem with using Flickr for CC licenses. In short, the author got a take down […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
45. The Creative Commons and the Power of Open | CreativePro.com

    April 11, 2015

    […] clear to the photographer that the librarian’s use of his image was non-commercial. Ms. Newman blogged about the experience, and while the dispute was resolved, it leaves a few questions […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
46. On releasing museum data and the importance of licenses – Open Objects

    June 10, 2015

    […] so have been coming across more material on confusion about ‘non-commercial’.  The Danger of Using Creative Commons Flickr Photos in Presentations discusses one case where the owner of a photograph was confused about whether it was being […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
47. Using Flickr to share your images via Creative Commons

    June 23, 2015

    […] I highly recommend updating your Creative Commons licensing information prior to upload. There are risks to others utilizing your work if you decide to update your licensing information, especially if you decide to become more […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
48. 

    cameran eubanks real world

    June 24, 2015

    And like Nikon EM and its series E lenses it was late in the (mirrorless) market and have several limitations.

    LikeLike

    Reply
49. 

    Seemantani Sharma

    July 22, 2015

    I was wondering if a University Library’s effort to archive and build an electronic collection of selected Flickr images amount to fair use under the copyright law. Few points are pertinent about this electronic collection (App)-
    (i) There is no fee associated with the App. Hence, it is non-commercial.
    (ii) The App would be accessible only to researchers, scholars and students affiliated with the University on an user authentication basis.
    (iii) The images will enlist the license details in the metadata.
    (iv) The images in the App will not be subject to bulk download.

    Any comments/ insight into this issue would be highly useful .Thank you.

    LikeLike

    Reply
50. Flickr: cambia la licenza delle foto con un click

    December 4, 2015

    […] Se volete potete leggere una storia che riporta anche questo problema. […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
51. Creative Commons и сила открытости – wowl.ru

    March 2, 2021

    […] свое изображение в некоммерческих целях. Г-жа Ньюман блоггинг об опыте, и хотя спор был разрешен, остается несколько […]

    LikeLike

    Reply