Ok to use 'All Rights Reserved' pictures from Flickr in blog posts?
April 13, 2010 11:04 AM Subscribe
I often see big-deal blogs such as Consumerist using third-party Flickr pictures to illustrate stories. I'm under the impression that when these pictures are tagged with an appropriate Creative Commons license, that such use is ok (as long as it falls under the restrictions set forth). But if it's explicitly tagged 'All Rights Reserved' how is this OK? Are they getting permission in each instance?
I have had one of my Flickr photos used by an AMEX blog, and they did write me for permission to use it with attribution. I would expect for any blog/site big enough to have a legal team, this is par for the course.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:18 AM on April 13, 2010
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:18 AM on April 13, 2010
Sorry, here are more sensible links for my photo theft claim. While part of the Gawker media network (the site has since been sold off), Consumerist editor Ben Popken had a policy of not obtaining permissions, because it would be too much trouble. This remarkably anti-consumer, unethical stance was challenged, and I believe has since been resolved with the application of the Flickr pool procedure.
posted by bunnycup at 11:18 AM on April 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by bunnycup at 11:18 AM on April 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Consumerist group on Flickr describes itself as "a collection of photos submitted by readers of consumer affairs and advocacy blog The Consumerist for possible use in blog posts."
Users who add their photos to the group are implying permission to have their photos used.
posted by reegmo at 11:21 AM on April 13, 2010
Users who add their photos to the group are implying permission to have their photos used.
posted by reegmo at 11:21 AM on April 13, 2010
It's very easy to get permission to use an "All Rights Reserved" photo. Ever Flickr user has email, so you just shoot them a standardized email asking for permission. They'll usually say yes. So I wouldn't assume that express permission isn't being given. But this is not to take away from bunnycup's links.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on April 13, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on April 13, 2010
Interestingly, I just discovered this very thing with a flickr contact of mine.
I was browsing the archives of the podcast, This American Life. I stumbled across this. (I collect these dolls so I recognized the image used). The photographer contacted the website and as you can see, they added a link to her flickr at the bottom of the page. (The link was not there before she contacted them).
But they had never requested permission. And who knows how long that picture has been up there.
posted by morganannie at 12:38 PM on April 13, 2010
I was browsing the archives of the podcast, This American Life. I stumbled across this. (I collect these dolls so I recognized the image used). The photographer contacted the website and as you can see, they added a link to her flickr at the bottom of the page. (The link was not there before she contacted them).
But they had never requested permission. And who knows how long that picture has been up there.
posted by morganannie at 12:38 PM on April 13, 2010
If an image is specifically tagged "All Rights Reserved," then it's possible the blog contacted the owner and asked for permission, as others have mentioned.
But frankly I think it's more likely that - like The Consumerist in the early days - they're just using the picture without knowing or caring about the licensing restriction.
If someone complains, they'll be happy to take it down, of course. But it's awfully rare (and difficult) for a Flickr user to stumble across unauthorized use of their photos.
posted by ErikaB at 1:06 PM on April 13, 2010
But frankly I think it's more likely that - like The Consumerist in the early days - they're just using the picture without knowing or caring about the licensing restriction.
If someone complains, they'll be happy to take it down, of course. But it's awfully rare (and difficult) for a Flickr user to stumble across unauthorized use of their photos.
posted by ErikaB at 1:06 PM on April 13, 2010
If you link to a picture, and don't directly embed it in your site, you aren't violating copyright.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:27 PM on April 13, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:27 PM on April 13, 2010
The Consumerist has used quite a few of my pictures (here, here, here, here, here, here, and most recently, here, plus a bunch of others I'm not going to track down).
In every one of these cases, the pictures were Creative Commons-licensed, and Ben or other Consumerist staff emailed me to say "Hey, we used your picture in this article" and they provided proper attribution (usually a link back to the Flickr page), or it was a picture that I'd given them permission to use in advance by adding it to the Consumerist photo pool.
They did get in a bit of a tiff for using people's photos without permission at first, which is why they created the Consumerist photo pool for folks to submit their work for use.
I may have a picture marked "All Rights Reserved" - but that doesn't keep me from explicitly giving someone permission to use it.
For example, I took this picture in 2003. Last year, someone from a band in Germany saw it and emailed me asking for permission to use it on their album cover. I said sure, and even took two more better-quality pictures. All I asked for in return was a copy of the album when it comes out.
posted by mrbill at 6:28 PM on April 13, 2010
In every one of these cases, the pictures were Creative Commons-licensed, and Ben or other Consumerist staff emailed me to say "Hey, we used your picture in this article" and they provided proper attribution (usually a link back to the Flickr page), or it was a picture that I'd given them permission to use in advance by adding it to the Consumerist photo pool.
They did get in a bit of a tiff for using people's photos without permission at first, which is why they created the Consumerist photo pool for folks to submit their work for use.
I may have a picture marked "All Rights Reserved" - but that doesn't keep me from explicitly giving someone permission to use it.
For example, I took this picture in 2003. Last year, someone from a band in Germany saw it and emailed me asking for permission to use it on their album cover. I said sure, and even took two more better-quality pictures. All I asked for in return was a copy of the album when it comes out.
posted by mrbill at 6:28 PM on April 13, 2010
But it's awfully rare (and difficult) for a Flickr user to stumble across unauthorized use of their photos.
Not really - I browse my Flickr stats page a couple times a week, and it's easy to see if a picture is being used somewhere (referrer counts and such, at least if they're linking back to the source image). Doesn't help if someone has copied the image and is serving it from their own hosting, however.
posted by mrbill at 6:30 PM on April 13, 2010
Not really - I browse my Flickr stats page a couple times a week, and it's easy to see if a picture is being used somewhere (referrer counts and such, at least if they're linking back to the source image). Doesn't help if someone has copied the image and is serving it from their own hosting, however.
posted by mrbill at 6:30 PM on April 13, 2010
I worked for Consumerist for two years, although bunnycup's links predated my time there. The photo pool when I was there was anything on Flickr that was tagged CC with commercial use (and remix if we were photoshopping it) or anything that was added to the Consumerist pool, regardless of the licensing. If we found something awesome we would reach out to the person for permission to use it.
When ownership of Consumerist transferred from Gawker to a non-profit, I was curious if that would affect the need to find pictures CC licensed for commercial use, but I don't think that changed. The Consumerist pool also became more important as leaving Gawker meant no more access to Getty.
Perhaps because of the prior issues with permission, new hires were pretty clearly instructed on what can and can't be used for posts.
posted by jalexc at 9:58 AM on April 16, 2010
When ownership of Consumerist transferred from Gawker to a non-profit, I was curious if that would affect the need to find pictures CC licensed for commercial use, but I don't think that changed. The Consumerist pool also became more important as leaving Gawker meant no more access to Getty.
Perhaps because of the prior issues with permission, new hires were pretty clearly instructed on what can and can't be used for posts.
posted by jalexc at 9:58 AM on April 16, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by bunnycup at 11:13 AM on April 13, 2010