"Twitpic, Flickr And Other Photo-Sharing Sites Can Sell Your Images If They Want"

The saying goes, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." And it holds true for all of these free storage sites.

That's the breaks.
 
keytarjunkie said:
Flickr just responded to this:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at-flickr-your-photos-are-always-yours/
I've used flickr for five years or so. They seem like they have their heads on mostly straight compared with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Years back at a computer company that is long gone we used to have a saying. Do you know how you can tell when your XXXX manager is lying to you......when you see his lips move!!!

The do now own but they have the rights to use any way they want is my read. I think this will quickly become an issue that will cause lots of pain, meetings, taunts and bad words to fly across the net.
 
Last edited:
Section 9. So, they can use your pic on their Yahoo Services to promote their Yahoo Services, but they can't sell it unless you let them, and their rights to use it at all can be revoked by you at any time. I think that's it.


"
  1. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES
    Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
    • With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.
    • With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.
    • With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
    "Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo! Services are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Groups and Flickr that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services would not include portions of Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo! services intended for private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo! network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo!."
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
 
No reason to get paranoid.
I mean, if you put your photos online and someone really wanted to, they could take your photo (even if it is a small resolution, I could bump it up a bit and still be fine, or call it art), print it and sale it as theirs.
Its all part of the game. Get your hustle on.
 
This isn't anything new, over a year ago twitter had very similar terms now they just have an exclusive agent through which they can steal your images. I bailed on them a long time ago. I still post links to my images (but not the photos themselves) on Twitter.

For what reason I have no idea, do people actually use twitter?
 
BillBingham2 said:
Years back at a computer company that is long gone we used to have a saying. Do you know how you can tell when your XXXX manager is lying to you......when you see his lips move!!!

The do now own but they have the rights to use any way they want is my read. I think this will quickly become an issue that will cause lots of pain, meetings, taunts and bad words to fly across the net.
Click to expand...

When a manager speaks to you this has no legal meaning. Terms of use have a legal meaning and I think the flickr terms of use are very clear and photog friendly. Where do you read that they can use your photo any way they want?
 
Luna said:
No reason to get paranoid.
I mean, if you put your photos online and someone really wanted to, they could take your photo (even if it is a small resolution, I could bump it up a bit and still be fine, or call it art), print it and sale it as theirs.
Its all part of the game. Get your hustle on.
Click to expand...

+1.

Low rez photos can be copied and distributed from anywhere (personal site or public photo hosting site), what other way is to share your photos to "public"?

I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
 
flickr pays for selling images to Getty ? How does that work ?

EDIT: Just figured it out ...
 
Last edited:
Even if you posted to a site that claims ownership of the image, it's only ownership of the digital file you uploaded, right? How does the fact that you control the negative (film or digital) factor in? If these terms prevent you as the photographer from distributing or selling that work, couldn't you just make another copy from the original, as a hard copy print say, and sell that?

-jakub
 
It's great that they are being up front with their terms of service and use. If you don't like the terms, don't use the free service, but it's a great service for those wanting to share a quick shot that has nothing to do with art or revenue.

Most of us screwing around on the internet forums wouldn't know what real art is even if it kicked us in the pants.

In a recent deal, I sent some 8.5x11 prints along with the product in the flat rate box, and got a reply thanking me for the requested product, and a WTF? on the photos... (no, they weren't photos of the cat ;))
 
Everyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer.

For a change, I agree with Ted's comment (ampguy) - most "photographers" take themselves FAR too seriously.

Dave
 
dcsang said:
Everyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer.

For a change, I agree with Ted's comment (ampguy) - most "photographers" take themselves FAR too seriously.

Dave
Click to expand...

Everyone with a camera IS a photographer. That's exactly why services such as Twitpic make these kinds of deals. Any crappy picture of a newsworthy event taken with a mobile phone can potentially be sold for a lot of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom