I've just recently been introduced to the world of Technorati which, in short, is a real-time search engine that keeps track of what's going on in the blogosphere. Technorati also makes it possible for you to find out what people on the Internet are saying about you, your company, your products, your competitors, etc.
I've signed up and put a few different things into my "watchlist". It lets me know when other blogs mention things like, static photography or my name or when people have linked to pictures in my flickr photostream.
Of course it was exciting to see my name mentioned in a few different places and people talking about my company but as with many good things, this also came with a downfall. I found that certain photos of mine were linked to sites that I have no interest in being a part of and really don't want my name, or photos being associated with. I'm not going to link them here cause I don't think these sites need the traffic.
This got me to thinking about what my online rights are and I realized, unfortunately, that I have no idea. Are random sites allowed to link to my photos? What if the way that they are using my pics has the potential to be detrimental to the image of the people in the photos? Does the person in the photo have the right to protect their image?
I realize that's a lot of questions but I'm hoping that some of you out there know more about this than I obviously do. I guess my main question is, by uploading my photos publicly to sites like flickr does it make them fair game for use on the internet?
I'm happy to report that one site that was linking to my pictures did agree to remove them after I emailed them and asked (politely) that they do so.
Any info you guys have on this would be SO much appreciated.
That guy was right and very s
That guy was right and very smart in saying no to you on that. Though my shots weren't reposted to anything with editorial attached I think the simple name of the site and their other content is something the person in the shot wouldn't appreciate being attached to.
If it was a "check out this photography" I realize I can't do much but because they actually have my image on their site I thought maybe I could.
I guess it also depends on what lengths I'm willing to go to to fight a site like that if they wouldn't have taken it down by my simply asking.
And you're allowed to steal my stuff anytime! But only you, Carm!
Thanks for the info, Travis.
Thanks for the info, Travis. I remember quickly looking over the license deal when I first signed up with flickr but didn't pay too much attention nor think of the ramifications of giving up my rights as to where the shots get used.
I guess what I was referring to was what you mentioned as "moral rights". If the person in the photo hasn't signed a model release for their image to be used in a certain way, can anyone just repost it to their site? I have permission for it to be used on my site but does that translate when other sites repost it?
I'm going to look into that and see what I can find, at least as far as Canada is concerned.
Now I'm off to change my licenses to all rights reserved....
You have control, legally, ov
You have control, legally, over what you put online. Let's look, for example, at the picture above.
You gave your work a CC licence on Flickr: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
By doing this, yu basically told the world they could use that picture however they want, as long as they keep to the terms of the licence.
You can, of course, change the license, but you can't legally stop people who started to use t when the license was applied -- "no take backs" as they say.
You can change the default license you apply on Flickr.
And, just to confuse matters, in some countries artists have what are called "moral rights" that are different than copyright, and Flickr doesn't really address those.
But basically, under the terms of the license you chose, yes, anyone can come along and use your image as long as they agree to the license. It's a binding agreement.
TTFN
Travis
I requested the use of a be
I requested the use of a beautiful photo from a man on Flickr for my magazine. The photo had people in it and I assumed that if it was public on Flickr it would be fine on my site. He declined my request because he couldn't ask the people in it if they were ok with that. When I told him why I figured it would be ok, he said that on Flickr they are public but they are not related to any editorial. In my article they woul be associated with that topic and he didn't know if they would mind. So I suppose there is a difference, say with a link that simply states "check out this photography" and it goes to your site, and a link that is used in conjunction with their own content and the actual use of the photo on their site. I think a link to your site is totally up for grabs becuase it supports your work and is unrelated to their content. If it is actually using your photography on their site, they totally need to ask. (except for me because I just steal it all the time...)
Post new comment