Is there a flickr for images we dont hold the copyrights for where we can basically post our image collections and have tags and peer ratings?
November 1, 2005 7:07 PM
Is there a flickr for images that we dont hold the copyrights for where we can basically post our image collections and have tags and peer ratings?
Yes I know this is probably violating copyright but I know people post images they dont hold the copyrights to on the nets... maybe a p2p solution?
Yes I know this is probably violating copyright but I know people post images they dont hold the copyrights to on the nets... maybe a p2p solution?
There are plenty of places on the net to get free or cheap photos... what are you after?
posted by BobsterLobster at 9:23 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by BobsterLobster at 9:23 PM on November 1, 2005
Basically the idea is like a del.icio.us for pics or something. What pics have people found save-worthy.
posted by baking soda at 9:54 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by baking soda at 9:54 PM on November 1, 2005
Someone should make a site that lets you upload pics you like and have them stay up for a few days so people could look at them. Maybe add voting or something so vistors could check vote tallies and say "this is good" or "this is bad" without bothering to look at the pictures first.
posted by dogwelder at 10:44 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by dogwelder at 10:44 PM on November 1, 2005
This is illegal, so you'll probably find something that does it ;-)
In the mean time, I know this isn't exactly what you're after, but you might enjoy hunting round del.icio.us using this tag:
http://del.icio.us/tag/system:filetype:jpg
posted by ajp at 6:09 AM on November 2, 2005
In the mean time, I know this isn't exactly what you're after, but you might enjoy hunting round del.icio.us using this tag:
http://del.icio.us/tag/system:filetype:jpg
posted by ajp at 6:09 AM on November 2, 2005
I don't really think it is crossing the line into being illegal as long as there is no money involved. It's kind of the same thing as people cutting their favorite pics out of a magazine. If you are looking for a place to collect and show off your "funneh" photo collection then there are plenty of places like that. College Humor or IRC Images comes to mind.
It would be kind of limited to set up something like Flickr. Basically there would be a million people uploading the most current and popular pic on the net. Which would mean unless there was someone to monitor and edit all of the submissions, there would be lots of overlap.
posted by JJ86 at 6:25 AM on November 2, 2005
It would be kind of limited to set up something like Flickr. Basically there would be a million people uploading the most current and popular pic on the net. Which would mean unless there was someone to monitor and edit all of the submissions, there would be lots of overlap.
posted by JJ86 at 6:25 AM on November 2, 2005
JJ86: Just to be clear, at least in the US it is very much illegal, even if there is no money involved.
The monetary damages are typically higher if the infringement is for profit, but it is illegal one way or the other.
That's a common misunderstanding in the US as far as copyright goes...just thought it should be clarified.
posted by griffey at 6:57 AM on November 2, 2005
The monetary damages are typically higher if the infringement is for profit, but it is illegal one way or the other.
That's a common misunderstanding in the US as far as copyright goes...just thought it should be clarified.
posted by griffey at 6:57 AM on November 2, 2005
A site hosting the photos would certainly be illegal--unless it were based in a country with lax copyright laws--and probably wouldn't happen.
However, it wouldn't be hard to put together a site where members posted URLs to photos hosted elsewhere on the net, and allowed the various tagging/rating/etc features. This would offload the legal liability, although (depending on exactly how it's set up) it might create a new problem that's essentially the same as the sites that used to frame others' copyrighted material with their own ads. Also, if you were pointing to a photo you found online somewhere, the actual host of that site might use referrer blocking, etc, to make that photo very inconvenient to get at, so there might be practical issues as well.
posted by adamrice at 7:26 AM on November 2, 2005
However, it wouldn't be hard to put together a site where members posted URLs to photos hosted elsewhere on the net, and allowed the various tagging/rating/etc features. This would offload the legal liability, although (depending on exactly how it's set up) it might create a new problem that's essentially the same as the sites that used to frame others' copyrighted material with their own ads. Also, if you were pointing to a photo you found online somewhere, the actual host of that site might use referrer blocking, etc, to make that photo very inconvenient to get at, so there might be practical issues as well.
posted by adamrice at 7:26 AM on November 2, 2005
griffey, it depends on what you are talking about. That is not a blanket statement for all images. I know that you will run into trouble using an image on a website when:
1. The picture is copyrighted by someone. (Not all images making their rounds on the internet are copyrighted.)
2. The owner of the copyright wishes to prosecute. (I can rarely envision a case where an artist will take a case to court unless they are losing money. In fact I have never heard of a case where a court will prosecute without an initial complaint by the artist or copyright holder.)
Generally, most pictures making their rounds around the internet are low-res versions of the original. I know that I for one as a photographer as well as legions of professionals, have no problem with their photos being sent around the internet as long as no one is trying to pass it off as their own or trying to make money with it. In fact many photographers encourage this behavior because it is a way to become more known and thence to make more money. So in most cases it is a win/win situation. There are always anal people who feel they must control every minute use of their works. Thankfully they are a minority.
Of course the internet is a relatively new medium and some uses are generalized as negative by courts whether they are beneficial or not. So if you believe that you stand to be sued out of house and home, pick a conservative approach. In the US, you are first given an order to stop the copyright violation and later sued for damages. In the case of an inferior jpeg copy of the work used for non-commercial purposes, I would tend to believe that any damages would be less than the hassle of suing. Otherwise we would see billions of lawsuits for every kid with a scrapbook - think about it.
posted by JJ86 at 8:31 AM on November 2, 2005
1. The picture is copyrighted by someone. (Not all images making their rounds on the internet are copyrighted.)
2. The owner of the copyright wishes to prosecute. (I can rarely envision a case where an artist will take a case to court unless they are losing money. In fact I have never heard of a case where a court will prosecute without an initial complaint by the artist or copyright holder.)
Generally, most pictures making their rounds around the internet are low-res versions of the original. I know that I for one as a photographer as well as legions of professionals, have no problem with their photos being sent around the internet as long as no one is trying to pass it off as their own or trying to make money with it. In fact many photographers encourage this behavior because it is a way to become more known and thence to make more money. So in most cases it is a win/win situation. There are always anal people who feel they must control every minute use of their works. Thankfully they are a minority.
Of course the internet is a relatively new medium and some uses are generalized as negative by courts whether they are beneficial or not. So if you believe that you stand to be sued out of house and home, pick a conservative approach. In the US, you are first given an order to stop the copyright violation and later sued for damages. In the case of an inferior jpeg copy of the work used for non-commercial purposes, I would tend to believe that any damages would be less than the hassle of suing. Otherwise we would see billions of lawsuits for every kid with a scrapbook - think about it.
posted by JJ86 at 8:31 AM on November 2, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by BobsterLobster at 9:22 PM on November 1, 2005