Comments on: Is there a Creative Commons license that would allow me to sell prints of other people photos on Flickr?

Question: Is there a Creative Commons license that would allow me to sell prints of other people photos on Flickr?

rschroed — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:57 -0800

Is there a Creative Commons license that would allow me to sell prints of other people photos on Flickr?

And how would sharealike work in a case like this

By: librarina

librarina — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:00:43 -0800

Do you mean prints of other people's photos, or prints of your photos of other people?

By: rschroed

rschroed — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:02:24 -0800

Sorry, other peoples photos.

Can I download a hi-res photo from Flickr and sell framed prints.

By: Nothing

Nothing — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:18:35 -0800

Unless they had a noncommercial, then yes, you could sell it. If it is an attribution license, you have to put their name on it though. Sharealike means that if you make a derivative work, such as a collage, you have to license that under a CC license as well.

By: rschroed

rschroed — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:23:30 -0800

Is a print of a digital photo a derivative work?

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:27:27 -0800

It seems you misunderstand licensing. If I make something, I choose the distribution license. If you want to use what I made, you don't get to pick another license, you have to work with the terms of the license I chose.

Your wording seems to indicate that you think you can use other's photos if you just choose the right license. That seems backwards. If no license is defined by the author, "All Rights Reserved" is assumed, those rights being the ones granted by copyright law.

By: rschroed

rschroed — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:44:20 -0800

No, I get it. I'd be looking for photo under a certain license.

Obviously 'noncommercial' is out. But 'No Derivative Works' might still be ok if a print is a copy and not derivative work.

'Attribution' doesn't seem to matter here. And 'Share Alike' only applies to derivavtive works.

Maybe shouldn't of had that extra Sappro at dinner

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:47:33 -0800

Ah, apologies. I understand the question better now. A print would not be a derivative work, it would be a copy.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:14:10 -0800

The relevant page at CC. A print would be a verbatim copy. I'm not sure how attribution would work. You obviously would need to make it clear at the time of sale, but do you have to tag the actual print in some way?

I assume something without any license is completely off-limits.

By: benzo8

benzo8 — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:14:41 -0800

So long as the licence doesn't contain Noncommercial, you're OK to sell someone else's pictures, assuming you abide by the other aspects of the licence - Attribution, Non-Derivative, etc.

In terms of attribution, you just have to make sure that the buyer is aware this isn't your work, and whose work it is. If, for instance, you're selling photographs, you can place the attribution on the back, so long as its clear.

As had been stated before, no CC license implies All Rights Reserved - you can't touch this without permission.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:36:25 -0800

Legalities aside, selling prints of someone else's pictures at a price any higher than your cost seems like a shallow business model. Are you facilitating a process from photographer to buyer that both sides have encouraged, or are you taking advantage of someone and pocketing the difference? If this is an above-the-board deal, why bring your question here? You should be asking the photographer. I don't want you selling pictures of my life, without telling me, to people who I don't know want them. Now, if Flickr had a 'prints sold' counter for every picture that would reflect anything you sold, that would be closer to fair. Sharing the difference with the photographer would be closer. Automate a process, always ask for permission, notify both sides of the deal about each other, keep track of what you do. Don't be a jerk.

By: benzo8

benzo8 — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:49:03 -0800

airguitar:

1. Snark doesn't help anyone on Ask.MeFi
2. Check out www.creativecommons.org - the question is specifically about works which their originators have already decided to release under a license which allows specifically what you think is so underhand and unfair.

By: striatic

striatic — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:13:33 -0800

Are you facilitating a process from photographer to buyer that both sides have encouraged

probably.

if i have am using a license that allows other people to copy my work and sell it at a profit, and the terms of that license are clear and anyone can read them, i would be encouraging that activity.

By: krisjohn

krisjohn — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:18:59 -0800

I say on my profile page that all my photos are public domain. You are therefore allowed to do whatever you want with them. That includes selling prints.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:44:06 -0800

Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking about this... It makes sense that if I choose a Creative Commons license that says 'do whatever you want with this', then doing whatever you want would include selling prints, that's fine. And nobody who didn't choose a CC license would have their pictures printed and sold, but... Flickr just seems different to me than a song or a paper that might get CCed. It's a community, it's also very amateur, people contribute what they have to be part of something bigger, these networks of networks, groups of friends and family; not to have their pictures printed and sold by someone they don't know.

Again, I take full credit for reading mal-intent into a question where there was none (that whole 'don't be a jerk' thing applies to me too), but really, Flickr has a very active set of Forums, it just seems odd to avoid asking the question there.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:33:22 -0800

Fuck, nevermind what I said. This is exactly what Creative Common Licenses are for. Anyone who has taken the time to read through each type understands this, and by assigning such to their work they are asking you to do just what you are.

People need to consider that when they use a CC license, but I was more wrong in questioning your question than I thought you were in asking it. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

By: rschroed

rschroed — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:11:34 -0800

Actually, airguitar, I probably agree with your original statement more than you do now. Just selling other people's stuff without kicking a few bucks back or even telling them does seem a little shady. I'm not actively planning on doing this, just thinking out loud.

But I am suprised someone like Art.com hasn't already started to mine flickr for content.

By: striatic

striatic — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:40:34 -0800

But I am surprised someone like Art.com hasn't already started to mine flickr for content.

probably because there isn't that much CC content in the mix, and on top of that there isn't that much CC content that allows commercial use .. and then within this thin wedge it is questionable as to whether there is a lot of professional quality work.

however, if you look at the full CC spectrum on flickr, including non-commercial, there's a lot of great stuff.

but over time, even that thin wedge will become huge, so eventually 3rd parties will take an interest.