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

[CameraQuest]

see story here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_860554.html

Disturbing Huffingtonpost story, if true.

Stephen

[nlubis]

I really need to get my own site... Thanks for the info.

[PatrickONeill]

well, I guess I should think twice before tweeting those steamy celeb pics from saturday's party on twitpic then.

[ZeissFan]

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]

Flickr just responded to this:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13...-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.

[BillBingham2]

Originally Posted by keytarjunkie

Flickr just responded to this:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13...-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.

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.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by BillBingham2

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.

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?

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by keytarjunkie

Flickr just responded to this:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13...-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.

I am satisfied with this response.

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by keytarjunkie

Flickr just responded to this:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13...-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.

Until Flickr gets sold to that particular someone else that is, ofcourse.

Guess I'll be scrapping my account there in the next couple of months, have some work to do on my rights management anyway.

I wonder, does this 'being allowed to sell' thing also apply to images that used to be on their servers and got deleted since? I reckon it would, right?

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

Until Flickr gets sold to that particular someone else that is, ofcourse.

Guess I'll be scrapping my account there in the next couple of months, have some work to do on my rights management anyway.

I wonder, does this 'being allowed to sell' thing also apply to images that used to be on their servers and got deleted since? I reckon it would, right?

Are you talking about flickr in your last sentence? They are not allowed to sell so who are you talking about?

[BillBingham2]

Sad and ugly.

[Clancycoop]

I'm glad I use Flickr then.

As keytarjunkie mentioned:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13...-always-yours/

[Damaso]

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?

[Mister E]

Flickr is safe. They pay me through Getty to sell my shots when they want them.

[maddoc]

flickr pays for selling images to Getty ? How does that work ?

EDIT: Just figured it out ...

[bukaj]

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

[ampguy]

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 )

[ruby.monkey]

I guess that actually checking flickr's terms of service was just too much work for that reporter.

[dcsang]

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

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by dcsang

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

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.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

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.

Do you know how much a "lot of money" might be?
It's a relative term after all.
A "lot of money" to the homeless is a cup of coffee...

Dave

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by dcsang

Do you know how much a "lot of money" might be?
It's a relative term after all.
A "lot of money" to the homeless is a cup of coffee...

Dave

Wtf? What the hell are you even talking about? What's with you and homeless people? Yes, Twitpic stands to make a lot of money by accumulating millions of pictures which essentially constitute a stock archive. Some might get sold for a few hundred and some for a few thousand but everything adds up pretty quickly.

[Ranchu]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Why because you don't agree? Don't post on sites other than your own.

No, because you entirely misrepresented what tw*tpic is doing, to deliberately add confusion to the thread. That's trolling. You're sitting back throwing mud for your own amusement, here.

Originally Posted by photomoof

What the hell is anyone talking about?

Reread the agreement, it is the same for any site you post on -- basically, you give the site rights to sell the site, and any images which might be on the site to someone else, e.g. Twitpic can be sold to Microsoft tomorrow, without the permission of the posters. It would be impossible to do business otherwise.

This right here is what tw*tpic is doing that is dishonest, and is the topic of the OP's thread. From Doublenegative's link.

"...The rest of the statement paints TwitPic as some kind of copyright-defending white knight, concerned about uploaded photos being "taken without permission and misused". To combat this, TwitPic has "partnered with organizations to help us combat this and to distribute newsworthy content in the appropriate manner". Translation: Noah knows that newspapers and picture agencies around the world are using pictures from TwitPic without paying for them, so now he wants a slice of the action. But of course he doesn’t just want a slice, he wants the whole cake, because the people who took the photos in the first place won’t be seeing a cent...."

http://www.meejahor.com/2011/05/12/t...o-protect-you/

Or did you really just not understand the issues of rights and usage, photomoof?

[Brian Legge]

That's the trick - all photo sharing sites need some sharing verbage on their legal disclaimers as they display peoples photos. Any that compress them differently or resize them need text related to modifying the photos.

All of which sounds really scary and confusing as soon as it's in legal speak. And hard for the average person to distinguish from something more nefarious.

[Ranchu]

Yeah, yeah. All that's well and good, except that twitpic (for twits I guess, ha) reserves for themselves the right to shake down anyone who publishes your (twit) pic, and then not cut you in on the action.

That is bull****, I don't care if 'this is nothing new', or 'it's free', or 'anybody who has a camera thinks they're a photographer' (guess you need three).

It always amazes me how many people jump to make excuses for this kind of rights grab, 'well socialized' I guess you could say.